MEDIA WEEK 2024
Art and technology in the contemporary world
Astronomical photographs are not photographs: Some reflections on what makes a photograph a photograph in science
María del Rosario Martínez-Ordaz
Resumen
It is thought that scientific photographs, particularly astronomical photographs, portray the greatest achievements of science, often allowing the public to witness what is out of reach for the naked eye while being some of the less theory-laden scientific artifacts (Cf. Cazeaux 2015). This is often attributed to two interrelated aspects: their beauty and their purported objectivity.
These intuitions are in agreement with the Orthodox View (OV) in the philosophy of photography which argues that the objective character of photographs com from their causal connection with reality (Cf. Scruton 1981; Walton 1984; Currie 1991, 1995). However, this agreement is only superficial as some of the most famous and successful astronomical photographs are also some of the most technical and theory-laden scientific products as well as some of the most humanly-intervened photographs in contemporary science. This raises the question of whether philosophy of photography has provided us with a view on photographs that can satisfactorily account for astronomical photographs.
Here, I explore the status of astronomical photographs qua photographs from two broad perspectives in the philosophy of photography: the Orthodox View (OV) and the New Theory and its radical version (NT and RNT).
I contend that astronomical photographs pose important challenges for both views. In particular:
– If following the OV, astronomical photographs cannot legitimately be considered photographs –because of their theory-ladennes and human intervention.
– If following the NT and RNT: astronomical photographs might be considered legitimate photographs but only for the wrong reasons, leaving unexplained the intuitive epistemic standing state of such photographs.
In order to do so I proceed in four steps. First, I summarizing the epistemological takes around photography. I briefly sketch the OV, the so-called New Theory, and the Radical New Theory. Second, I explain under which circumstances astronomical photographs should not count as photographs according to the OV. Third, I explain under which circumstances the Radical New Theory overlooks some of the essential elements of astronomical photographs, namely their objectivity and their reliability. Finally, I draw some conclusions.
Síntesis curricular
Institute for Philosophical Research-UNAM, México