Masking disagreement among experts

Episteme 3 (1-2):52-67 (2006)
There are many reasons why scientific experts may mask disagreement and endorse a position publicly as “jointly accepted.” In this paper I consider the inner workings of a group of scientists charged with deciding not only a technically difficult issue, but also a matter of social and political importance: the maximum acceptable dose of radiation. I focus on how, in this real world situation, concerns with credibility, authority, and expertise shaped the process by which this group negotiated the competing virtues of reaching consensus versus reporting accurately the nature and degree of disagreement among them.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.52
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 36,528
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Why Deliberative Democracy?Amy Gutmann & Dennis Thompson - 2004 - Princeton University Press.
Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?Alvin I. Goldman - 2001 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (1):85-110.
Modelling Collective Belief.Margaret Gilbert - 1987 - Synthese 73 (1):185-204.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Should We Aim for Consensus?Alfred Moore & John Beatty - 2010 - Episteme 7 (3):198-214.
Values in Science: The Case of Scientific Collaboration.Kristina Rolin - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (2):157-177.

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total downloads
157 ( #38,874 of 2,302,336 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #119,654 of 2,302,336 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature