一个被掩盖的真相?法国健康论坛上关于口罩的公开讨论。

IF 3.2 2区 哲学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Minerva Pub Date : 2023-04-17 DOI:10.1007/s11024-023-09493-0
Madeleine Akrich, Franck Cochoy
{"title":"一个被掩盖的真相?法国健康论坛上关于口罩的公开讨论。","authors":"Madeleine Akrich,&nbsp;Franck Cochoy","doi":"10.1007/s11024-023-09493-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>By analyzing the discussion on a health forum, we examine how wearing sanitary masks during the Covid-19 pandemic changed people's lives and what adjustments were required. During our review, we encountered theories referred to by participants as \"conspiracy theories\" that led to heated exchanges on the forum. Surprisingly, these interactions promoted, rather than prevented, collective exploration and resulted in a rich discussion of the issues related to wearing masks. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, we first analyze the dynamics of the discussion, its progression, and the conditions under which it was maintained over time, even given the radical expression of irreconcilable positions. Second, we examine the results of the discussion in terms of describing the problems triggered by the mask and the different authorities on which these descriptions were based. We conclude that the boundaries between science and non-science were occasionally blurred because of the wavering of scientific authorities and the uncertainty of the questions related to the pandemic, rather than because of a generalized distrust of science. We recognize that paradoxically, \"conspiracist\" theories contribute to the production of knowledge and that the adherence to these theories may stem more from the personal experiences of the individuals who profess them, rather than from the contaminating power of conspiracy theories.</p>","PeriodicalId":47427,"journal":{"name":"Minerva","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10106318/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Masked Truth? Public Discussions about Face Masks on a French Health Forum.\",\"authors\":\"Madeleine Akrich,&nbsp;Franck Cochoy\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11024-023-09493-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>By analyzing the discussion on a health forum, we examine how wearing sanitary masks during the Covid-19 pandemic changed people's lives and what adjustments were required. During our review, we encountered theories referred to by participants as \\\"conspiracy theories\\\" that led to heated exchanges on the forum. Surprisingly, these interactions promoted, rather than prevented, collective exploration and resulted in a rich discussion of the issues related to wearing masks. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, we first analyze the dynamics of the discussion, its progression, and the conditions under which it was maintained over time, even given the radical expression of irreconcilable positions. Second, we examine the results of the discussion in terms of describing the problems triggered by the mask and the different authorities on which these descriptions were based. We conclude that the boundaries between science and non-science were occasionally blurred because of the wavering of scientific authorities and the uncertainty of the questions related to the pandemic, rather than because of a generalized distrust of science. We recognize that paradoxically, \\\"conspiracist\\\" theories contribute to the production of knowledge and that the adherence to these theories may stem more from the personal experiences of the individuals who profess them, rather than from the contaminating power of conspiracy theories.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47427,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minerva\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10106318/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minerva\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-023-09493-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-023-09493-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

通过分析健康论坛上的讨论,我们研究了在新冠肺炎大流行期间戴卫生口罩如何改变人们的生活,以及需要进行哪些调整。在我们的回顾中,我们遇到了被与会者称为“阴谋论”的理论,这些理论导致了论坛上的激烈交流。令人惊讶的是,这些互动促进而不是阻止了集体探索,并导致了对戴口罩相关问题的丰富讨论。采用定量和定性相结合的方法,我们首先分析了讨论的动态、进展以及随着时间的推移保持讨论的条件,即使考虑到不可调和立场的激进表达。其次,我们从描述口罩引发的问题以及这些描述所基于的不同权威的角度来研究讨论的结果。我们得出的结论是,科学和非科学之间的界限偶尔会模糊,这是因为科学权威的动摇和与疫情相关的问题的不确定性,而不是因为对科学的普遍不信任。我们认识到,矛盾的是,“阴谋论”理论有助于知识的产生,对这些理论的坚持可能更多地源于信奉这些理论的个人的个人经历,而不是阴谋论的污染力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Masked Truth? Public Discussions about Face Masks on a French Health Forum.

By analyzing the discussion on a health forum, we examine how wearing sanitary masks during the Covid-19 pandemic changed people's lives and what adjustments were required. During our review, we encountered theories referred to by participants as "conspiracy theories" that led to heated exchanges on the forum. Surprisingly, these interactions promoted, rather than prevented, collective exploration and resulted in a rich discussion of the issues related to wearing masks. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, we first analyze the dynamics of the discussion, its progression, and the conditions under which it was maintained over time, even given the radical expression of irreconcilable positions. Second, we examine the results of the discussion in terms of describing the problems triggered by the mask and the different authorities on which these descriptions were based. We conclude that the boundaries between science and non-science were occasionally blurred because of the wavering of scientific authorities and the uncertainty of the questions related to the pandemic, rather than because of a generalized distrust of science. We recognize that paradoxically, "conspiracist" theories contribute to the production of knowledge and that the adherence to these theories may stem more from the personal experiences of the individuals who profess them, rather than from the contaminating power of conspiracy theories.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva
Minerva Multiple-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Minerva is devoted to the study of ideas, traditions, cultures and institutions in science, higher education and research. It is concerned no less with history than with present practice, and with the local as well as the global. It speaks to the scholar, the teacher, the policy-maker and the administrator. It features articles, essay reviews and ''special'' issues on themes of topical importance. It represents no single school of thought, but welcomes diversity, within the rules of rational discourse. Its contributions are peer-reviewed. Its audience is world-wide.
期刊最新文献
The EUropeanisation of Research Infrastructure Policy Between Delivery and Luck: Projectification of Academic Careers and Conflicting Notions of Worth at the Postdoc Level Benchmarking and the Technicization of Academic Discourse: The Case of the EU at-Risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion Composite Indicator Strategic Bureaucracy: The Convergence of Bureaucratic and Strategic Management Logics in the Organizational Restructuring of Universities The Therapeutic University
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1