Knowledge, Trust, and Society: A Conceptual and Historical Inquiry into Science Communication

Abstract

Scientific knowledge, which influence every aspect of contemporary life, has
become not only a determinant of individual practices but also a fundamental element
in collective decision-making processes. Therefore, questioning the nature of science
is not merely a philosophical endeavor but an epistemological and political necessity.
This article first revisits classical and modern debates on the definition of science,
emphasizing its organized and systematic nature, while acknowledging the inherent
difficulty of establishing a universally accepted definition. It then shifts The study
further extend its focus to the circulation, translation, and public engagement of
scientific knowledge, arguing that without being shared, knowledge cannot attain
cultural or political power.
At the core of this inquiry lies the argument that science communication is not
a mere transmission of information but a multilayered cultural practice involving
trust-building, representation, and legitimation. In this context, popular science is
approached not as diluted knowledge, but as a form of epistemic responsibility and

public visibility. The article offers a critical reflection on the marginalization of science
communication in the Turkish academic landscape, where it is rather overlooked
regarding institutionalization and ethics. Yet, the legitimacy of science depends not
only on its internal coherence but also on the contexts and channels through which it is
communicated and received.
This discussion is anchored in a historical case study: The emergence of “virtual
witnessing” in 17th-century England through the experimental practices of Robert
Boyle. Boyle’s communication strategy rooted in the cultural codes of gentlemanly
honor and rhetorical restraint demonstrates how epistemic credibility was constructed
not only through observation but also through narrative, testimony, and performative
objectivity. Then as now, the legitimacy of science is closely tied to the trust placed in its
communicators.
Ultimately, this article argues that science communication is an intellectual and
ethical responsibility. It is not merely about simplifying technical content, but about
cultivating a relationship between science and society grounded in mutual recognition
and trust. In this regard, to speak of science is always to speak of how and by whom it
is communicated.