In:Controversies in the Contemporary World
Edited by Adriano Fabris and Giovanni Scarafile
[Controversies 15] 2019
► pp. 279–296
Chapter 15The “water memory affair”
The epistemic structure of a scientific controversy
Published online: 7 August 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.15.16rag
https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.15.16rag
Abstract
In the sociology of science, certain authors claim that the analysis of controversies may take place in an analytical framework which states that science is not an activity that is regulated by shared standards and that nature may play only a marginal role in the assessment and validation of scientific knowledge. From the case of the water memory controversy, we will show that one of the conditions determining the possibility of scientific debates relates to the existence of an epistemic ethos constituted of three norms (realism, coherentism and skepticism). These norms frame argumentative exchanges. Moreover, the aporias of the empirical sub-determination of controversies will be highlighted by discussing in particular the argument of the experimenter’s regress.
Keywords: scientific field, epistemic ethos, realism, coherentism, skepticism, water memory, Benveniste
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Controversy and scientific ethos: The normative substrate of normal science
- 3.Benveniste’s failures in the application of scientific ethos norms
- A criticized application of the realism norm
- An assumed suspicion towards the coherentism norm and a problematic attitude towards the skepticism norm
- 4.The aporias of the thesis of empirical sub-determination of scientific controversies
- The inherent strength of the realism standard
- The inadequacy of the experimenter’s regress thesis
- 5.Conclusion
Notes References
References (41)
Amman, K., & Knorr-Cetina, K. (1990). The Fixation of (Visual) Evidence. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.). Representation in Scientific Practice (pp.cc-cc). MIT Press.
Beauvais, F. (2007). L’âme des molécules. Une histoire de la “ mémoire de l’eau ”. Breinigsville, Mille Mondes.
Benveniste, J. et al. (1991). L’agitation de solutions hautement diluée n’induit pas d’activité biologique spécifique, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris, tome 312, Série II.
Bourdieu, P. (1976). Le champ scientifique [The Scientific Field]. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 2/3, 88–103.
Callon, M., & Law, J. (1982). On Interests and Their Transformation: Enrolment and Counter-Enrolment. Social Studies of Science, 12, 1982, 615–625.
Collins, H. M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice, Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
(2001). Tacit Knowledge, Trust and the Q of Sapphire. Social Studies of Science, 31 (1), 2001, 71–85.
Davenas, E., Beauvais, F., Amara, J., Oberba, M., Robinzon, B., Miadonna, M., Tedeschi, A., Pomeranz, B., Fortner, P., Belon, P., Sainte-Laudy, J., Poitevin, B., Benveniste, J. (1988). Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE. Nature, 333, 816–818.
De la Brosse, S. (1988). Une grande découverte fait la France la base d’une nouvelle aventure scientifique qui assure un avenir fantastique à la recherche. Le Pr Benveniste : “Oui l’eau de la mémoire”. Paris Match, 15 juillet, 58–59.
De Lara, P. (2014). Droit et coutume : ce que Hart doit à Wittgenstein. Droit & Philosophie, Volume 6, 93–104.
Farley, J., Geison, G. L. (1974). Science, Politics, and Spontaneous Generation in 19ht Century France: The Pasteur-Pouchet Debate. Bulletin of The History of Medicine, vol.48, 161–198.
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Hirst, S. J., & Hayes, N. A., & Burridge, J. et al. (1993). Human basophil degranulation is not triggered by very dilute antiserum against human IgE, Nature, 366, 525–527.
Latour, B. (1983). Le dernier des capitalistes sauvages. Interview d’un biochimiste. Fundamenta Scientiae, vol.4, n°3–4, 301–327.
(1987). Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979).
Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Los Angeles, London: Sage.
Lynch, M. (1985). Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science. A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Mackenzie, D. A. (1978). Statistical Theory and Social Interests: A Case Study. Social Studies of Science, vol.8, 35–83.
(1982). Statistics in Britain (1865–1930). The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.
Marcovich, A., & Shinn, T. (2012). Regimes of Science Production and Diffusion: Towards a Transverse Organization of Knowledge. Scientiæ Studia, v. 10, special issue, 33–64.
Merton, R. K. (1942). The Normative Structure of Science. In R. K. Merton, The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago, London, The University of Chicago Press.
Pinch, T. (1985). Towards an Analysis of Scientific Observation: The Externality and Evidentia Significance of Observational Reports in Physics. Social Studies of Science, vol.15, issue 1, 3–36.
Ragouet, P. (2016). L’eau a-t-elle une mémoire ? Sociologie d’une controverse scientifique. Paris, Raisons d’Agir.
Schiff, M. (1994). Un cas de censure dans la science. L’affaire de la mémoire de l’eau. Paris, Albin Michel.
Shinn, T. (2000). Formes de division du travail scientifique et convergence intellectuelle. La recherche technico-instrumentale. Revue française de sociologie, 41-3, 447–473.