Masking disagreement among experts

Episteme 3 (1-2):52-67 (2006)
Abstract
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
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,781
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 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
148 ( #33,310 of 2,199,753 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #149,569 of 2,199,753 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature