Keywords

Scientific journalism, journalistic objectivity, evidences scientific

Abstract

Can we inform of science in an objective way? Some professional sectors sustain that the objectivity doesn’t exist and that it is not even desirable. But that idea appears as absurd in the mark of the scientific information. The problem of the journalistic objectivity coincides with an old very present dilemma in the philosophy of the science: how to know the reality and how to approach to the truth. The author bets for an adaptation of the critical realism of Popper in front of the subjetivismo. The formula: observation more experimentation. The model: a journalism based on the scientific evidence.

References

BASTENIER, M.A. (2001): El blanco móvil. Curso de Periodismo. Madrid, Ediciones El País.

Link Google Scholar

KUHN, T. (1997): La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. México, Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Link Google Scholar

POPPER, K. (1979): El desarrollo del conocimiento científico: conjeturas y refutaciones. Buenos Aires, Paidós.

Link Google Scholar

POPPER, K. (1980): La lógica de la investigación científica. Madrid, Tecnos.

Link Google Scholar

POPPER, K. (1985): El coneixement humà, el seu abast i els seus límits. Barcelona, Edicions 62. (En castellano: editorial Taurus).

Link Google Scholar

POPPER, K. (1988): Conocimiento objetivo: un enfoque evolucionista. Madrid, Tecnos.

Link Google Scholar

POPPER, K. (1995): La responsabilidad de vivir. Escritos sobre política, historia y conocimiento. Barcelona, Paidós.

Link Google Scholar

RUSE, M. (2001): El misterio de los misterios. Barcelona, Tusquets/ Matemas.

Link Google Scholar

SEBEOK T. y UMIKER-SEBEOK, J. (1987): Sherlock Holmes y Charles S. Peirce. El método de la investigación. Barcelona, Paidós.

Link Google Scholar

Fundref

This work has no financial support

Crossmark

Technical information

Metrics

Metrics of this article

Views: 18283

Abstract readings: 15190

PDF downloads: 3093

Full metrics of Comunicar 19

Views: 716718

Abstract readings: 607944

PDF downloads: 108774

Cited by

Cites in Web of Science

Currently there are no citations to this document

Cites in Scopus

Currently there are no citations to this document

Cites in Google Scholar

Currently there are no citations to this document

Download

Alternative metrics

How to cite

Rementol-i-Massana, S. (2002). Sherlock Holmes was right. [Sherlock Holmes tenía razón]. Comunicar, 19, 31-35. https://doi.org/10.3916/C19-2002-06

Share

           

Post Office Box 527

21080 Huelva (Spain)

Administration

Editorial office

Creative Commons

This website uses cookies to obtain statistical data on the navigation of its users. If you continue to browse we consider that you accept its use. +info X