David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Experts disagree for many reasons and it is generally accepted that there is no `rational' way to make them agree. As Michaels (2008) has demonstrated with regard to the activities of the tobacco industry, however, expert disagreement can be 'manufactured'. This suggests a distinction between 'genuine' and 'counterfeit scientific controversies.' I argue that it is necessary and possible to distinguish between these two forms of expert disagreement. It is important for policy-making to know which disagreements to take seriously. 'Counterfeit scientific controversies' can delay or impede policy-decisions that depend on scientific knowledge. One way for Science & Technology Studies to contribute to science policy-making is to develop a consistent and reliable way to demarcate 'genuine' from 'counterfeit scientific controversies'. This paper proposes four sociologically derived demarcation criteria.
|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
Harry Collins & Martin Weinel (2011). Transmuted Expertise: How Technical Non-Experts Can Assess Experts and Expertise. [REVIEW] Argumentation 25 (3):401-413.
Similar books and articles
Sheila Jasanoff (1996). Is Science Socially Constructed—and Can It Still Inform Public Policy? Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (3):263-276.
T. Shanahan (2001). Methodological and Contextual Factors in the Dawkins/Gould Dispute Over Evolutionary Progress. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 32 (1):127-151.
Enrico Viola (2009). “Once Upon a Time” Philosophy of Science: Sts, Science Policy and the Semantic View of Scientific Theories. [REVIEW] Axiomathes 19 (4):465-480.
Stacy Lee Burns (2008). Demonstrating “Reasonable Fear” at Trial: Is It Science or Junk Science? [REVIEW] Human Studies 31 (2):107 - 131.
Geert Munnichs (2004). Whom to Trust? Public Concerns, Late Modern Risks, and Expert Trustworthiness. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (2):113-130.
Stephen F. Haller & James Gerrie (2007). The Role of Science in Public Policy: Higher Reason, or Reason for Hire? [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (2):139-165.
Peter K. Machamer, Marcello Pera & Aristeidēs Baltas (eds.) (2000). Scientific Controversies: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Jeanine Czubaroff (1997). The Public Dimension Of Scientific Controversies. Argumentation 11 (1):51-74.
René von Schomberg (ed.) (1993). Science, Politics, and Morality: Scientific Uncertainty and Decision Making. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #348,070 of 1,100,855 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #289,727 of 1,100,855 )
How can I increase my downloads?