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.
KUHN, T. (1997): La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. México, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
POPPER, K. (1979): El desarrollo del conocimiento científico: conjeturas y refutaciones. Buenos Aires, Paidós.
POPPER, K. (1980): La lógica de la investigación científica. Madrid, Tecnos.
POPPER, K. (1985): El coneixement humà, el seu abast i els seus límits. Barcelona, Edicions 62. (En castellano: editorial Taurus).
POPPER, K. (1988): Conocimiento objetivo: un enfoque evolucionista. Madrid, Tecnos.
POPPER, K. (1995): La responsabilidad de vivir. Escritos sobre política, historia y conocimiento. Barcelona, Paidós.
RUSE, M. (2001): El misterio de los misterios. Barcelona, Tusquets/ Matemas.
SEBEOK T. y UMIKER-SEBEOK, J. (1987): Sherlock Holmes y Charles S. Peirce. El método de la investigación. Barcelona, Paidós.
Fundref
This work has no financial support
Technical information
Metrics
Metrics of this article
Views: 25139
Abstract readings: 21218
PDF downloads: 3921
Full metrics of Comunicar 19
Views: 1003887
Abstract readings: 868433
PDF downloads: 135454
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
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