Episteme 7 (3):198-214 (2010)
There can be good reasons to doubt the authority of a group of scientists. But those reasons do not include lack of unanimity among them. Indeed, holding science to a unanimity or near-unanimity standard has a pernicious effect on scientific deliberation, and on the transparency that is so crucial to the authority of science in a democracy. What authorizes a conclusion is the quality of the deliberation that produced it, which is enhanced by the presence of a non-dismissible minority. Scientists can speak as one in more ways than one. We recommend a different sort of consensus that is partly substantive and partly procedural. It is a version of what Margaret Gilbert calls “joint acceptance” – we call it “deliberative acceptance.” It capitalizes on there being a persistent minority, and thereby encourages accurate reporting of the state of agreement and disagreement among deliberators.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues From Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway - 2010 - Bloomsbury Press.
Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News.David Christensen - 2007 - Philosophical Review 116 (2):187-217.
Citations of this work BETA
Are There Limits to Scientists' Obligations to Seek and Engage Dissenters?Kristen Intemann & Inmaculada de Melo-Martín - 2014 - Synthese 191 (12):2751-2765.
Scientific Consensus and Expert Testimony in Courts: Lessons From the Bendectin Litigation.Boaz Miller - 2016 - Foundations of Science 21 (1):15-33.
Introduction: Social Epistemology Meets the Philosophy of the Humanities.Anton Froeyman, Laszlo Kosolosky & Jeroen Van Bouwel - 2016 - Foundations of Science 21 (1):1-13.
Towards Democratic Models of Science. Exploring the Case of Scientific Pluralism.Jeroen Van Bouwel - 2015 - Perspectives on Science 23 (2):149-172.
Who's Afraid of Dissent?: Addressing Concerns About Undermining Scientific Consensus in Public Policy Developments.Inmaculada de Melo-Martín & Kristen Intemann - 2014 - Perspectives on Science 22 (4):593-615.
Similar books and articles
Ethics by Committee: The Moral Authority of Consensus.Jonathan D. Moreno - 1988 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (4):411-432.
Joint Acceptance and Scientific Change: A Case Study.Hanne Andersen - 2010 - Episteme 7 (3):248-265.
Objectivity, Disagreement, and Projectibility.Paul Seabright - 1988 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 31 (1):25 – 51.
Deliberation and Agreement.Christian List - 2008 - In Shawn W. Rosenberg (ed.), Can the People Govern? Deliberation, Participation and Democracy. Palgrave-Macmillan.
The (Severe) Limits of Deliberative Democracy as the Basis for Political Choice.Gerald Gaus - 2008 - Theoria 55 (117):26-53.
When is Consensus Knowledge Based? Distinguishing Shared Knowledge From Mere Agreement.Boaz Miller - 2013 - Synthese 190 (7):1293-1316.
Modus Vivendi, Consensus, and (Realist) Liberal Legitimacy.Enzo Rossi - 2010 - Public Reason 2 (2):21-39.
Hierarchy of Scientific Consensus and the Flow of Dissensus Over Time.Kyung-Man Kim - 1996 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 26 (1):3-25.
Consensus by Aggregation and Deliberation.Richard Bradley - 2007 - In Toni Rønnow-Rasmussen (ed.), Homage à Wlodek: Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz.
The Epistemic Significance of Consensus.Aviezer Tucker - 2003 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 46 (4):501 – 521.
Dominance and the Disunity of Method: Solving the Problems of Innovation and Consensus.Rachel Laudan & Larry Laudan - 1989 - Philosophy of Science 56 (2):221-237.
Bargaining and Strategic Demand Commitment.Daniel Cardona-Coll - 2003 - Theory and Decision 54 (4):357-374.
Added to index2010-10-27
Total downloads71 ( #74,352 of 2,172,901 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #324,901 of 2,172,901 )
How can I increase my downloads?