A Modernidade e a Pós-modernidade, em seus antagonismos produziram discursos de legitimação de projetos os quais deslocam, um em relação ao outro, seus sentidos. Tudo que se moveu neste cenário carregou consigo e se embateu com as ambigüidades e aporias que aí se deram. Assim, portanto, se desenvolveu a Ciência Moderna, expandindo seus campos, legitimando novos discursos ora pela vicariedade, ora baseada na alteridade e ora utilizando a paralogia como recurso. Este é o caso da Ciência da Comunicação que, depois da transição vicariedade/alteridade buscou legitimação discursiva em teorias que substantivassem sua autonomia. Entre elas está a Teoria da Recepção e/ou Teoria da Mediação como vem sendo nomeada. Em Jesús Martín-Barbero os estudos de recepção encontraram vigor para tornar a Ciência da Comunicação não só um discurso científico legítimo, mas também sustentar um projeto de autonomia do pensamento latino americano. Constituído nosso objeto, Dos meios às mediações, obra de Martín-Barbero que referencia o projeto ousado o qual a Comunicação tomou para si, traz, no entanto, uma série de problemas epistemológicos no mapa noturno que desenhou, os quais carecem ser revistos, na medida em que sustentam metodologias empregadas hoje por laboratórios de pesquisa que tomam a recepção como caminho. Dialética, Mediação e Subalternidade, do mesmo modo que os limites do deslocamento da categoria trabalho para a categoria comunicação e os limites da mediação subjetiva, estão no cerne das categorias as quais não prescindem de uma discussão séria a fim de se resolver os problemas de legitimação destes trabalhos empíricos na base da Ciência da Comunicação. Discutir as trajetórias das Ciências, bem como debater sobre as bases epistemológicas do discurso que se pretende autônomo, do mesmo modo, discutir os limites da superação de um pensamento europeu ainda com vitalidade, estão na pauta de nosso trabalho o qual agora submetemos à leitura da comunidade científica. / The Modernity and the Post-modernity, in yours antagonisms, produced legitimations speeches to projects wich dislocate, one in relation other, yours senses. All what move it in this scene, carry on with yourself and embat it with te ambiguities and apories that in there happened. This way, therefore, developed it the Modern Science, dilated your fields, legitimating news speeches one moment by vicarity, the next by alterity and the next using the paralogy like resource. This is the case of the Science of the Communication what then transition vicarity/alterity searched legitimations speechesin theories who substantive your autonomy. Between they is the Theory of Reception and/or Theory of Mediation, how goes being called. In Jesús Martín-Barbero, the studies of reception found force to turn the science of the Communication into doesnt only a scientific speech legitimated, but too to support a project of autonomy of thought latin american. Building our object, Dos meios às Mediações, of Martín- Barbero who referances the daring project that the Communication take to it, bring, however, a whole series epistemologic problems in the night map designed by him and that need of revision, cause support the methodologies emploied today in labs of research what take the reception on like your way. Dialect, Mediation and Subalternity are in the center of the categories who doesnt excuse of a severe epistemologic discussion to solve the problems of legitimation these empirics terms in the base of the Science of Communication. To question the route of sciences, well like to debate about the epistemics bases of speeches that pretend autonomy itself, well like the limits of superation of european thought, yet in force are in the lines of our work that now we submit it to the reading of scientific comunity.

This thesis investigates quantum physics narratives for non-physicists, covering four interlocking modes of writing for adults and children, fictional and nonfictional, from 1900 to the present. It brings together three separate scholarly fields: literature and science, science fiction, and science communication. The thesis has revealed parallels between the approaches to quantum physics in these disparate narratives that have not been addressed before, shedding new light on the mutual influences between science and narrative form. The thesis argues that similar narrative tropes have been employed in popular science writing and in fiction across all age groups, changing non-physicists' ideas of quantum physics. This understanding differs significantly from the professional understanding of quantum physics, as I establish by means of a series of case studies, including popular science books for adults by Alastair I.M. Rae, George Gamow and Robert Gilmore; popularizations for children by Lucy and Stephen Hawking, Russell Stannard, and Otto Fong; children's fiction by Philip Pullman and Madeleine L'Engle; and fiction for adults by Greg Egan, David Walton, Blake Crouch, and Iain Pears. An analysis of authors who wrote for various audiences or in multiple genres, such as Fred Hoyle, Stephen Hawking, and Ian Stewart, shows how the same concerns and conflicts surface in a wide range of stories. Quantum physics is not yet fully understood; the Copenhagen, conscious collapse, many-worlds and other interpretations compete for both scientific and public acceptance. Influential physics communicators such as John Gribbin and Brian Cox have written popularizations in which they express a personal preference for one interpretation, arguing against others. Scientific conflict, which tends to be omitted from university teaching, is thus explicitly present in popularizations, making it clear to the reader that quantum physics is in a constant state of flux. I investigate the conflicts between Fred Hoyle and George Gamow, and Stephen Hawking and Leonard Susskind, to see how they undermine the alleged objectivity of science. The interplay between the different stories of quantum physics shows how the science not only shapes the stories: the stories shape the science, too.

La plupart des Américains ne sont pas préoccupés par les vaccins. Cependant, minorité petite mais vocale l’est, et un nombre croissant de parents américains reçoivent des exemptions de vaccination pour leurs enfants sur la base de la religion ou de «convictions personnelles». Le refus vaccinal peut avoir des conséquences désastreuses: dans certaines communautés, la couverture vaccinale infantile a plongé bien en deçà du seuil requis pour «l'immunité collective», permettant à des maladies comme la rougeole d'opérer un retour en force. L'hésitation vaccinale et le refus vaccinal sont souvent attribués au manque de connaissances ou de compréhension des « faits » scientifiques des anti-vaccins. La plupart des interventions de santé publique qui visent à promouvoir la vaccination reposent sur la simple diffusion de connaissances scientifiques fiables; la communication scientifique est perçue comme un processus à sens unique de diffusion des connaissances scientifiques. La théorie est la suivante : si les anti-vaccins savaient à quel point les vaccins sont sécuritaires, efficaces et nécessaires, ils vaccineraient davantage. Malheureusement, la littérature dans plusieurs disciplines suggère que de telles interventions d'éducation passive à l'échelle de la communauté sont généralement inefficaces pour persuader les anti-vaccins d'adopter des attitudes et des comportements pro-vaccination. Pourquoi? En m'inspirant des principes de transdisciplinarité d'Edgar Morin, de la théorie des révolutions scientifiques de Thomas Kuhn et de la méthodologie de revue méta-narrative de Trisha Greenhalgh, j'examine les publications de différents auteurs phares de différentes disciplines qui fournissent directement ou indirectement une réponse à cette question. Je distingue trois approches principales, qui diffèrent quant à leur explication générale des raisons pour lesquelles les interventions basées sur la simple diffusion de preuves scientifiques échouent. La première explication est que les anti-vaccins n'ont pas les connaissances scientifiques nécessaires pour comprendre les preuves scientifiques qui leur sont présentées. La deuxième est que la résistance des anti-vaccins aux preuves scientifiques peut s’expliquer par de nombreux biais cognitifs qui anènent les individus à faire des erreurs systématiques de jugement et à s'écarter ainsi de l’idéal décisionnel de la théorie du choix rationnel. Le troisième narratif sur les anti-vaccins met l'accent sur les influences socioculturelles. Selon la théorie de la cognition culturelle, la culture influence les perceptions du risque à travers des biais cognitifs. Ces trois narratifs sur l'hésitation et le refus de la vaccination sont examinés en profondeur afin de fournir une synthèse interdisciplinaire des facteurs qui peuvent expliquer l'échec des interventions de santé publique basées sur l'éducation à persuader les anti-vaccins. / Most Americans are not concerned about vaccines. However, a small but vocal minority is, and a growing number of parents are receiving vaccine mandate exemptions for their children on the basis of religion or “personal belief.” Vaccine refusal can have disastrous consequences: in some communities, childhood vaccination coverage has dived well below the threshold required for “herd immunity,” allowing diseases like measles to stage a forceful comeback. Vaccine hesitancy and refusal are often attributed to a lack of knowledge or lack of understanding of scientific “facts” on the part of antivaxxers. Most public health interventions that aim to promote vaccination rely on disseminating trustworthy scientific knowledge and see science communication as a one-way process of diffusion of scientific evidence. If antivaxxers knew how safe, effective, and necessary vaccines are, the theory goes, they would vaccinate more. Unfortunately, literature across disciplines suggests that such passive, community-wide education interventions are mostly ineffective at persuading antivaxxers to adopt pro-vaccination attitudes and behaviours. Why? Inspired by Edgar Morin’s principles of transdisciplinarity, Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions, and Trisha Greenhalgh’s meta-narrative review methodology, I examine the publications of different seminal authors across disciplines that directly or indirectly provide an answer to this question. I distinguish three main approaches, which differ as to their general explanation of why interventions based on simple dissemination of scientific evidence fail. The first explanation is that antivaxxers lack the scientific literacy that is necessary to understand the scientific evidence that is presented to them. The second is that antivaxxers’ resistance to scientific evidence can be explained by the numerous cognitive biases and “rules of thumb” that lead individuals to make systematic errors in judgment and thus deviate from the rational choice theory decision-making ideal. The third narrative stresses sociocultural influences. According to cultural cognition theory, culture influences risk perceptions through the mechanisms of cognitive biases and heuristics. These three narratives about vaccine hesitancy and refusal are thoroughly examined in order to provide a cross-disciplinary synthesis of factors that may explain the failure of education-based public health interventions to persuade antivaxxers.