Should We Aim for Consensus?
Episteme 7 (3):198-214 (2010)
| Abstract | There can be good reasons to doubt the authority of a group of scientists. But those reasons do not include lack of unanimity among them. Indeed, holding science to a unanimity or near-unanimity standard has a pernicious effect on scientific deliberation, and on the transparency that is so crucial to the authority of science in a democracy. What authorizes a conclusion is the quality of the deliberation that produced it, which is enhanced by the presence of a non-dismissible minority. Scientists can speak as one in more ways than one. We recommend a different sort of consensus that is partly substantive and partly procedural. It is a version of what Margaret Gilbert calls “joint acceptance” – we call it “deliberative acceptance.” It capitalizes on there being a persistent minority, and thereby encourages accurate reporting of the state of agreement and disagreement among deliberators. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJonathan D. Moreno (1988). Ethics by Committee: The Moral Authority of Consensus. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (4):411-432.
John Beatty (2006). Masking Disagreement Among Experts. Episteme 3 (1-2):52-67.
Hanne Andersen (2010). Joint Acceptance and Scientific Change: A Case Study. Episteme 7 (3):248-265.
Paul Seabright (1988). Objectivity, Disagreement, and Projectibility. Inquiry 31 (1):25 – 51.
Boaz Miller (2013). When is Consensus Knowledge Based? Distinguishing Shared Knowledge From Mere Agreement. Synthese 190 (7):1293-1316.
Enzo Rossi (2010). Modus Vivendi, Consensus, and (Realist) Liberal Legitimacy. Public Reason 2 (2):21-39.
Kyung-Man Kim (1996). Hierarchy of Scientific Consensus and the Flow of Dissensus Over Time. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 26 (1):3-25.
Richard Bradley (2007). Consensus by Aggregation and Deliberation. In Toni Rønnow-Rasmussen (ed.), Homage à Wlodek: Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz.
Aviezer Tucker (2003). The Epistemic Significance of Consensus. Inquiry 46 (4):501 – 521.
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.
Isaac Levi (1990). Pareto Unanimity and Consensus. Journal of Philosophy 87 (9):481-492.
Daniel Cardona-Coll (2003). Bargaining and Strategic Demand Commitment. Theory and Decision 54 (4):357-374.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-10-27Total downloads35 ( #34,083 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,320 of 548,984 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
