Synthese:1-29 (forthcoming)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
Recently, invasion biologists have argued that some of the skepticism expressed in the scientific and lay literatures about the risks of invasive species and other aspects of the consensus within invasion biology is a kind of science denialism. This paper presents an argument that, while some claims made by skeptics of invasion biology share important features with paradigm cases of science denialism, others express legitimate ethical concerns that, even if one disagrees, should not be dismissed as denialist. Further, this case illustrates a more general point about ethical disagreement within sciences like invasion biology that constitutively pursue non-epistemic goals and values. While philosophers of science have argued that epistemic disagreement within science can be productive as heterogeneous epistemic communities “hedge their bets,” the case of invasion biology shows how non-epistemic or ethical disagreement within sciences, while carrying significant risks, can also be epistemically and non-epistemically valuable.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1007/s11229-019-02259-w |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
View all 28 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Logical fallacies and reasonable debates in invasion biology: a response to Guiaşu and Tindale.David M. Frank, Daniel Simberloff, Jordan Bush, Angela Chuang & Christy Leppanen - 2019 - Biology and Philosophy 34 (5):1-11.
Similar books and articles
Logical Fallacies and Invasion Biology.Radu Cornel Guiaşu & Christopher W. Tindale - 2018 - Biology and Philosophy 33 (5-6):34.
Denialism as Applied Skepticism: Philosophical and Empirical Considerations.Matthew H. Slater, Joanna K. Huxster, Julia E. Bresticker & Victor LoPiccolo - 2020 - Erkenntnis 85 (4):871-890.
The Value of Epistemic Disagreement in Scientific Practice. The Case of Homo Floresiensis.Helen De Cruz & Johan De Smedt - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (2):169-177.
XI—Literature and Disagreement.Eileen John - 2014 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 114 (3pt3):239-260.
The Epistemic Benefits of Religious Disagreement.Katherine Dormandy - forthcoming - Religious Studies.
Disagreement in Scientific Ontologies.David Ludwig - 2013 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie (1):1-13.
Epistemic Modals and Credal Disagreement.Torfinn Thomesen Huvenes - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (4):987-1011.
Moral Agnosticism: An Ethics of Inquiry and Public Discourse.Lawerence Torcello - 2014 - Teaching Ethics 14 (2):3-16.
Conciliationism and Merely Possible Disagreement.Zach Barnett & Han Li - 2016 - Synthese 193 (9):1-13.
The Significance of Ethical Disagreement for Theories of Ethical Thought and Talk.Gunnar Björnsson - 2017 - In Tristram McPherson & David Plunkett (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Metaethics. Routledge. pp. 275-291.
Relativism and Faultless Disagreement.Richard Hou & Linton Wang - 2013 - Philosophia 41 (1):203-216.
Disagreement: Idealized and Everyday.Jonathan Matheson - 2014 - In Jonathan Matheson Rico Vitz (ed.), The Ethics of Belief: Individual and Social. Oxford University Press. pp. 315-330.
The Reflective Epistemic Renegade.Bryan Frances - 2010 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81 (2):419 - 463.
Are Conciliatory Views of Disagreement Self-Defeating?Jonathan Matheson - 2015 - Social Epistemology 29 (2):145-159.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2019-05-22
Total views
29 ( #354,577 of 2,401,796 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #126,902 of 2,401,796 )
2019-05-22
Total views
29 ( #354,577 of 2,401,796 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #126,902 of 2,401,796 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads