David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of the Social Sciences 26 (1):3-25 (1996)
During the last few years, several sociological accounts of scientific consensus appeared in which a radically skeptical view of cognitive consensus in science was advocated. Challenging the traditional realist conception of scientific consensus as a sui generis social fact, the radical skeptics claim to have shown that the traditional historical sociologist's supposedly definitive account of scientific consensus is only a linguistic chimera that easily can be deconstructed by the application of different interpretive schema to the given data. I will argue in this article that such an idealistic conception of scientific consensus results from the radical skeptics' failure to take into account the following three factors that are central to the historical sociologist's narrative account of consensus formation: the "judgmental" character of the reconstruction of scientists' beliefs, the hierarchical nature of the consensus change in science, and the importance of the "temporal dimension" in the explanation of scientific consensus formation. To substantiate these three points, I will draw extensively on two recent historical-sociological studies of scientific consensus formation.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jeroen Van Bouwel (2009). The Problem with(Out) Consensus : The Scientific Consensus, Deliberative Democracy and Agonistic Pluralism. In The Social Sciences and Democracy. Palgrave Macmillan
Jonathan D. Moreno (1995). Deciding Together: Bioethics and Moral Consensus. Oxford University Press.
Rachel Laudan & Larry Laudan (1989). Dominance and the Disunity of Method: Solving the Problems of Innovation and Consensus. Philosophy of Science 56 (2):221-237.
A. G. (2000). The Assembly of Geophysics: Scientific Disciplines as Frameworks of Consensus. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 31 (3):259-292.
Paul Seabright (1988). Objectivity, Disagreement, and Projectibility. Inquiry 31 (1):25 – 51.
Steve Fuller (1986). The Elusiveness of Consensus in Science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:106-119.
Aviezer Tucker (2003). The Epistemic Significance of Consensus. Inquiry 46 (4):501 – 521.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #190,267 of 1,780,587 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #204,197 of 1,780,587 )
How can I increase my downloads?