2015-10-14
247
In this chapter, we will focus on scientists’ humour and on its connections with other elements of scientists’ discourse.
Our first example, which has no storyline, no description of supposed events and no comic resolution, we refer to as the 'proto-joke'. We came across this proto-joke in the course of visiting biochemistry laboratories to carry out interviews. The proto-joke consists of two lists of phrases, one referring to formulations which can be used in the formal research literature and the other supplying their informal equivalents. The lists are given titles like 'A Key to Scientific Research Literature' or 'Dictionary of Useful Research Phrases'. The version below reproduces some of the more popular items in our collection.
| What he wrote | What he meant |
| (a) It has long been known that... | I haven’t bothered to look up the reference. |
| (b) While it has not been possible to provide definite answers to these questions... | The experiment didn’t work out, but I figured I could at least get a publication out of it. |
| (c) The W-PO system was chosen as especially suitable... | The fellow in the next lab had some already prepared. |
| (d) Three of the samples were chosen for detailed study... | The results on the others didn’t make sense and were ignored. |
| (e) Accidentally strained during mounting... | Dropped on the floor. |
| (f) Handled with extreme care throughout the experiment... | Not dropped on the floor. |
| (g) Typical results are shown... | The best results are shown, i.e. those that fit the dogma. |
| (h) Agreement with the predicted curve is: Excellent Good Satisfactory Fair | Fair Poor Doubtful Imaginary |
| (i) Correct within an order of magnitude... | Wrong. |
| (j) Of great theoretical and practical importance... | Interesting to me. |
| (k) It is suggested that... it is believed that... it appears that… | I think. |
| (l) It is generally believed that... | A couple of other guys think so too. |
| (m) The most reliable results are those obtained by Jones... | He was my graduate student. |
| (n) Fascinating work... | Work by a member of our group. |
| (o) Of doubtful significance… | Work by someone else. |
The phrases under 'What he wrote' are organised in terms of the empiricist repertoire and those under 'What he meant' in terms of the contingent repertoire. The empiricist phrases present scientists' research actions as impersonal (j to o), as following from procedural rules (c, d, g), and as allowing the facts to speak for themselves (c, d, f to i). But these phrases are translated into the informal idiom of scientific talk in a way which undermines their implicit conception of scientific action. Impersonality is replaced with personal commitment (b, d, g, j, k) and the influence of social relationships is stressed (c, 1 to o). Similarly, the procedural rules of scientific investigation are depicted, not as determining scientists' judgements, but as being used by scientists to further their own knowledge-claims and their own interests (g to j, m to o). In general, the formal phrases of the research literature are reinterpreted to reveal the contingency of scientists' actions (c, e, f) and the contingency of their claims about the natural world (a, b, d, g to o).
