New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press (2018)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
The lack of public support for climate change policies and refusals to vaccinate children are just two alarming illustrations of the impacts of dissent about scientific claims. Dissent can lead to confusion, false beliefs, and widespread public doubt about highly justified scientific evidence. Even more dangerously, it has begun to corrode the very authority of scientific consensus and knowledge. Deployed aggressively and to political ends, some dissent can intimidate scientists, stymie research, and lead both the public and policymakers to oppose important public policies firmly rooted in science.
To criticize dissent is, however, a fraught exercise. Skepticism and fearless debate are key to the scientific process, making it both vital and incredibly difficult to characterize and identify dissent that is problematic in its approach and consequences. Indeed, as de Melo-Martín and Intemann show, the criteria commonly proposed as means of identifying inappropriate dissent are flawed and the strategies generally recommended to tackle such dissent are not only ineffective but could even make the situation worse.
The Fight Against Doubt proposes that progress on this front can best be achieved by enhancing the trustworthiness of the scientific community and by being more realistic about the limits of science when it comes to policymaking. It shows that a richer understanding of the context in which science operates is needed to disarm problematic dissent and those who deploy it. This, the authors argue, is the best way forward, rather than diagnosing the many instances of wrong-headed dissent.
|
Keywords | Philosophy of science Scientific Dissent Values in Science Climate Change Epistemic Trust |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
Buy this book |
Find it on Amazon.com
|
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Democratic Values: A Better Foundation for Public Trust in Science.S. Andrew Schroeder - 2021 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72 (2):545-562.
Thinking About Values in Science: Ethical Versus Political Approaches.S. Andrew Schroeder - forthcoming - Canadian Journal of Philosophy:1-10.
How to Philosophically Tackle Kinds Without Talking About ‘Natural Kinds’.Ingo Brigandt - 2020 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy.
What is epistemically wrong with research affected by sponsorship bias? The evidential account.Alexander Reutlinger - 2020 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 10 (2):1-26.
Feyerabend and Manufactured Disagreement: Reflections on Expertise, Consensus, and Science Policy.Jamie Shaw - 2020 - Synthese 198 (Suppl 25):6053-6084.
View all 20 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
Are There Limits to Scientists' Obligations to Seek and Engage Dissenters?Kristen Intemann & Inmaculada de Melo-Martín - 2014 - Synthese 191 (12):2751-2765.
Climate Skepticism and the Manufacture of Doubt: Can Dissent in Science Be Epistemically Detrimental?Justin B. Biddle & Anna Leuschner - 2015 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5 (3):261-278.
Is It Appropriate to ‘Target’ Inappropriate Dissent? On the Normative Consequences of Climate Skepticism.Anna Leuschner - 2018 - Synthese 195 (3):1255-1271.
Scientific Dissent and Public Policy. Is Targeting Dissent a Reasonable Way to Protect Sound Policy Decisions?Inmaculada de Melo-Martin & Kristen Intemann - 2013 - EMBO Reports 14 (4):231-35.
Consensus in Science.Miriam Solomon - 2001 - The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 2001:193-204.
Epistemic Arrogance and Political Dissent.Michael Lynch - forthcoming - In Voicing Dissent. New York: Routledge.
Epistemic Corruption and Manufactured Doubt: The Case of Climate Science.Justin B. Biddle, Anna Leuschner & Ian James Kidd - 2017 - Public Affairs Quarterly 31 (3):165-187.
Identifying Difference, Engaging Dissent: What is at Stake in Democratizing Knowledge?L. King, B. Morgan-Olsen & J. Wong - 2016 - Foundations of Science 21 (1):69-88.
The Devil is in the (Historical) Details: Continental Drift as a Case of Normatively Appropriate Consensus?Naomi Oreskes - 2008 - Perspectives on Science 16 (3):pp. 253-264.
In Defense of “Targeting” Some Dissent About Science.Erin J. Nash - 2018 - Perspectives on Science 26 (3):325-359.
Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate.Larry Laudan - 1984 - University of California Press.
Science, Medicine, Dissent: Joseph Priestley. [REVIEW]Geoffrey Cantor - 1989 - Enlightenment and Dissent 8:125-129.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2018-08-31
Total views
61 ( #185,265 of 2,498,795 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #118,323 of 2,498,795 )
2018-08-31
Total views
61 ( #185,265 of 2,498,795 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #118,323 of 2,498,795 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads