Results for 'Scientific consensus'

999 found
Order:
  1.  38
    Scientific Consensus and Expert Testimony in Courts: Lessons From the Bendectin Litigation.Boaz Miller - 2016 - Foundations of Science 21 (1):15-33.
    A consensus in a scientific community is often used as a resource for making informed public-policy decisions and deciding between rival expert testimonies in legal trials. This paper contains a social-epistemic analysis of the high-profile Bendectin drug controversy, which was decided in the courtroom inter alia by deference to a scientific consensus about the safety of Bendectin. Drawing on my previously developed account of knowledge-based consensus, I argue that the consensus in this case was (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  2.  29
    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.
    Many have argued that allowing and encouraging public avenues for dissent and critical evaluation of scientific research is a necessary condition for promoting the objectivity of scientific communities and advancing scientific knowledge . The history of science reveals many cases where an existing scientific consensus was later shown to be wrong . Dissent plays a crucial role in uncovering potential problems and limitations of consensus views. Thus, many have argued that scientific communities ought (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  3.  20
    Hierarchy of Scientific Consensus and the Flow of Dissensus Over Time.Kyung-Man Kim - 1996 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 26 (1):3-25.
    During the last few years, several sociological accounts of scientific consensus appeared in which a radically skeptical view of cognitive consensus in science was advocated. Challenging the traditional realist conception of scientific consensus as a sui generis social fact, the radical skeptics claim to have shown that the traditional historical sociologist's supposedly definitive account of scientific consensus is only a linguistic chimera that easily can be deconstructed by the application of different interpretive schema (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4.  7
    Scientific Consensus and Public Policy.Darrin W. Belousek - 2004 - Journal of Philosophy, Science and Law 4:1-35.
    This paper examines normative and political aspects of the peer review, scientific consensus and public policy processes related to harmful algal blooms of Pfiesteria in estuarine waters of North Carolina and Maryland in the 1990s. After laying out a brief science and policy case history, the tension between the scientific consensus and public policy processes in this case is analyzed in terms of conflicts between scientific norms, public values and political expediency. The relationship between (...) consensus and public policy in general is then questioned in light of this case. (shrink)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  37
    Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change.Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, William Briggs, Willie Soon & David Legates - 2015 - Science & Education 24 (3):299-318.
    Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook, seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  6.  94
    The Elementary Economics of Scientific Consensus.Bonilla Jesús P. Zamora - 1999 - Theoria 14 (3):461-488.
    The scientist's decision of accepting a given proposition is assumed to be dependent on two factors: the scientist's 'private' information about the value of that statement and the proportion of colleagues who also accept it. This interdependence is modelled in an economic fashion, and it is shown that it may lead to multiple equilibria. The main conclusions are that the evolution of scientific knowledge can be path, dependent, that scientific revolutions can be due to very small changes in (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  7.  25
    Measuring Consensus About Scientific Research Norms.Richard A. Berk, Stanley G. Korenman & Neil S. Wenger - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (3):315-340.
    In this paper, we empirically explore some manifestations of norms for the conduct of science. We focus on scientific research ethics and report survey results from 606 scientists who received funding in 1993 and 1994 from the Division of Molecular and Cellular Biology of the Biology Directorate of the National Science Foundation. We also report results for 91 administrators charged with overseeing research integrity at the scientists’ research institutions. Both groups of respondents were presented with a set of scenarios, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  8.  5
    The Elementary Economics of Scientific Consensus.Jesús P. Zamora Bonilla - 1999 - Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 14 (3):461-488.
    The scientist’s decision of accepting a given proposition is assumed to be dependent on two factors: the scientist’s ‘private’ information about the value of that statement and the proportion of colleagues who also accept it. This interdependence is modelled in an economic fashion, and it is shown that it may lead to multiple equilibria. The main conclusions are that the evolution of scientific knowledge can be path-dependent, that scientific revolutions can be due to very small changes in the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9.  66
    The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We 'Re Not Wrong?'.Naomi Oreskes - 2007 - In Joseph F. DiMento & Pamela Doughman (eds.), Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. MIT Press. pp. 65.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  10. The Problem with(Out) Consensus : The Scientific Consensus, Deliberative Democracy and Agonistic Pluralism.Jeroen Van Bouwel - 2009 - In The Social Sciences and Democracy. Palgrave-Macmillan.
  11.  8
    Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change: A Response to Legates, Soon and Briggs.Daniel Bedford & John Cook - 2013 - Science & Education 22 (8):2019-2030.
  12.  8
    Explaining Scientific Consensus: The Case of Mendelian GeneticsKyung-Man Kim.Barry Barnes - 1996 - Isis 87 (1):198-199.
  13.  6
    Book Reviews : The Scientific Consensus and Recent British Philosophy, Vol. 1. By Freny Mehta. Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1980. Pp. XIX + 186. [REVIEW]J. O. Wisdom - 1988 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 18 (3):426-426.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14. The Scientific Consensus and Recent British Philosophy.Freny Mehta (ed.) - 1980 - Popular Prakashan.
    v. 1. Convergences of British schools of psychoanalysis, Piager's analysis, the Gestalt school and ethology, and ethics of British idealism vs logical realism and prescriptivism.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15. "The Scientific Consensus and Recent British Philosophy" by Freny Mehta.J. O. Wisdom - 1988 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 18 (3):426.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16. The Assembly of Geophysics: Scientific Disciplines as Frameworks of Consensus.A. G. - 2000 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 31 (3):259-292.
    What makes any investigative field a scientific discipline? This article argues that disciplines are ever-changing frameworks within which scientific activity is organised. Moreover, disciplinarity is not a yes or no proposition: scientific activities may achieve degrees of identity development. Degree of consensus is the key, and consensus on many questions (conceptual, methodological, institutional, and social) varies among sciences. Lastly, disciplinary development is non-teleological. Disciplines pass through no regular stages on their way from immature to mature (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17.  69
    Towards Democratic Models of Science. Exploring the Case of Scientific Pluralism.Jeroen Van Bouwel - 2015 - Perspectives on Science 23 (2):149-172.
    Scientific pluralism, a normative endorsement of the plurality or multiplicity of research approaches in science, has recently been advocated by several philosophers (e.g., Kellert et al. 2006, Kitcher 2001, Longino 2013, Mitchell 2009, and Chang 2010). Comparing these accounts of scientific pluralism, one will encounter quite some variation. We want to clarify the different interpretations of scientific pluralism by showing how they incarnate different models of democracy, stipulating the desired interaction among the plurality of research approaches in (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  18.  23
    The Assembly of Geophysics: Scientific Disciplines as Frameworks of Consensus.Gregory A. Good - 2000 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 31 (3):259-292.
  19.  26
    On Scientific Justification by Consensus.Paul K. Moser - 1986 - Zeitschrift Für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 17 (1):154-161.
    Nach vielen gegenwärtigen Wissenschaftstheoretikern ist die Wissenschaftstheorie des Logischen Empirismus, wie sie in den Schriften von Carnap, Russell, Reichenbach und Hempel vertreten wird, durch die neue Wissenschaftstheorie wesentlich verbessert worden, wie sie von Hanson, Polanyi, Toulmin und Kuhn entwickelt worden ist. Aber keiner der letzteren Gegner des Logischen Empirismus hat im Detail die Erkenntnistheorie herausgearbeitet, welche der neuen Wissenschaftstheorie zugrundeliegt. Kürzlich jedoch hat Harold I. Brown, in Perception, Theory and Commitment · The New Philosophy of Science , eine klare Formulierung (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20.  13
    The Assembly of Geophysics: Scientific Disciplines as Frameworks of Consensus.Gregory A. Good - 2000 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 31 (3):259-292.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  21.  9
    Social Consensus and the Scientific Method.Adrian M. Dupuis - 1955 - Educational Theory 5 (4):242-248.
  22. Scientific Knowledge. Discourse Ethic and Consensus in Public Sphere.M. Kettner - 1993 - In Earl R. Winkler & Jerrold R. Coombs (eds.), Applied Ethics: A Reader. Blackwell.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23. Truth, Consensus and Probability: On Peirce's Definition of Scientific Truth.John M. Vickers - 1980 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 61 (3):183.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24.  86
    When Expert Disagreement Supports the Consensus.Finnur Dellsén - 2018 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 96 (1):142-156.
    It is often suggested that disagreement among scientific experts is a reason not to trust those experts, even about matters on which they are in agreement. In direct opposition to this view, I argue here that the very fact that there is disagreement among experts on a given issue provides a positive reason for non-experts to trust that the experts really are justified in their attitudes towards consensus theories. I show how this line of thought can be spelled (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  25.  12
    Leaping “Out of the Doubt”—Nutrition Advice: Values at Stake in Communicating Scientific Uncertainty to the Public.Anna Paldam Folker & Peter Sandøe - 2008 - Health Care Analysis 16 (2):176-191.
    This article deals with scientific advice to the public where the relevant science is subject to public attention and uncertainty of knowledge. It focuses on a tension in the management and presentation of scientific uncertainty between the uncertain nature of science and the expectation that scientific advisers will provide clear public guidance. In the first part of the paper the tension is illustrated by the presentation of results from a recent interview study with nutrition scientists in Denmark. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  26.  30
    'Beyond Consensus? A Reply to Alan Irwin.'.Jeroen Van Bouwel - 2017 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 6 (10):48-53.
  27. The Social Epistemology of Consensus and Dissent.Boaz Miller - forthcoming - In David Henderson, Peter Graham, Miranda Fricker & Nikolaj Jang Lee Linding Pedersen (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Social Epistemology. London: Routledge.
    This paper reviews current debates in social epistemology about the relations ‎between ‎knowledge ‎and consensus. These relations are philosophically interesting on their ‎own, but ‎also have ‎practical consequences, as consensus takes an increasingly significant ‎role in ‎informing public ‎decision making. The paper addresses the following questions. ‎When is a ‎consensus attributable to an epistemic community? Under what conditions may ‎we ‎legitimately infer that a consensual view is knowledge-based or otherwise ‎epistemically ‎justified? Should consensus be the aim (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  28.  14
    Comment on Scientific Objectivity with a Human Face by Professor Holm Tetens.Howard Sankey - 2004 - In Martin Carrier, J. Roggenhoffer, G. Kuppers & Ph Blanchard (eds.), Knowledge and the World: Challenges Beyond the Science Wars. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer-Verlag. pp. 95-98.
    This is a comment on Professor Holm Tetens' paper, 'Scientific Objectivity with a Human Face'.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  29. When is Consensus Knowledge Based? Distinguishing Shared Knowledge From Mere Agreement.Boaz Miller - 2013 - Synthese 190 (7):1293-1316.
    Scientific consensus is widely deferred to in public debates as a social indicator of the existence of knowledge. However, it is far from clear that such deference to consensus is always justified. The existence of agreement in a community of researchers is a contingent fact, and researchers may reach a consensus for all kinds of reasons, such as fighting a common foe or sharing a common bias. Scientific consensus, by itself, does not necessarily indicate (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  30. Social Empiricism.Miriam Solomon - 2001 - Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
    For the last forty years, two claims have been at the core of disputes about scientific change: that scientists reason rationally and that science is progressive. For most of this time discussions were polarized between philosophers, who defended traditional Enlightenment ideas about rationality and progress, and sociologists, who espoused relativism and constructivism. Recently, creative new ideas going beyond the polarized positions have come from the history of science, feminist criticism of science, psychology of science, and anthropology of science. Addressing (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  31. Three Criteria for Consensus Conferences.Jacob Stegenga - 2016 - Foundations of Science 21 (1):35-49.
    Consensus conferences are social techniques which involve bringing together a group of scientific experts, and sometimes also non-experts, in order to increase the public role in science and related policy, to amalgamate diverse and often contradictory evidence for a hypothesis of interest, and to achieve scientific consensus or at least the appearance of consensus among scientists. For consensus conferences that set out to amalgamate evidence, I propose three desiderata: Inclusivity, Constraint, and Evidential Complexity. Two (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32.  16
    Non‐Scientific Criteria for Belief Sustain Counter‐Scientific Beliefs.S. Emlen Metz, Deena S. Weisberg & Michael Weisberg - 2018 - Cognitive Science 42 (5):1477-1503.
    Why is evolutionary theory controversial among members of the American public? We propose a novel explanation: allegiance to different criteria for belief. In one interview study, two online surveys, and one nationally representative phone poll, we found that evolutionists and creationists take different justifications for belief as legitimate. Those who accept evolution emphasize empirical evidence and scientific consensus. Creationists emphasize not only the Bible and religious authority, but also knowledge of the heart. These criteria for belief remain predictive (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33. The Ethics of Belief, Cognition, and Climate Change Pseudoskepticism: Implications for Public Discourse.Lawrence Torcello - 2016 - Topics in Cognitive Science 8 (1):19-48.
    The relationship between knowledge, belief, and ethics is an inaugural theme in philosophy; more recently, under the title “ethics of belief” philosophers have worked to develop the appropriate methodology for studying the nexus of epistemology, ethics, and psychology. The title “ethics of belief” comes from a 19th-century paper written by British philosopher and mathematician W.K. Clifford. Clifford argues that we are morally responsible for our beliefs because each belief that we form creates the cognitive circumstances for related beliefs to follow, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  34.  25
    The Swedish Research Council’s Definition of ‘Scientific Misconduct’: A Critique.Håkan Salwén - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (1):115-126.
    There is no consensus over the proper definition of ‘scientific misconduct.’ There are differences in opinion not only between countries but also between research institutions in the same country. This is unfortunate. Without a widely accepted definition it is difficult for scientists to adjust to new research milieux. This might hamper scientific innovation and make cooperation difficult. Furthermore, due to the potentially damaging consequences it is important to combat misconduct. But how frequent is it and what measures (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  35. The Vagaries of Psychoanalytic Interpretation: An Investigation Into the Causes of the Consensus Problem in Psychoanalysis.Kevin Lynch - 2014 - Philosophia 42 (3):779-799.
    Though the psychoanalytic method of interpretation is seen by psychoanalysts as a reliable scientific tool for investigating the unconscious mind, its reputation has long been marred by what’s known as the consensus problem: where different analysts fail to reach agreement when they interpret the same phenomena. This has long been thought, by both practitioners and observers of psychoanalysis, to undermine its claim to scientific status. The causes of this problem, however, are dimly understood. In this paper I (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  36.  63
    Distributed Cognition in Scientific Contexts.Hyundeuk Cheon - 2014 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 45 (1):23-33.
    Even though it has been argued that scientific cognition is distributed, there is no consensus on the exact nature of distributed cognition. This paper aims to characterize distributed cognition as appropriate for philosophical studies of science. I first classify competing characterizations into three types: the property approach, the task approach, and the system approach. It turns out that the property approach and the task approach are subject to criticism. I then argue that the most preferable way to understand (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  37. Critical Scientific Realism. [REVIEW]Anjan Chakravartty - 2005 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 69 (1):227-229.
    In the wake of proclamations of the death of scientific realism, the past few years have witnessed several book-length resurrections. Like the undead, realism is proving hard to finish off once and for all. In the preface to his book, Ilkka Niiniluoto suggests that the realism debate will never generate a consensus; it is an eternal problem of philosophy. Certainly, since the flourishing of work on the subject two decades ago, it has become clear that some disputes between (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38.  26
    The Debate Over Food Biotechnology in the United States: Is a Societal Consensus Achievable?Edward Groth - 2001 - Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (3):327-346.
    Unless the public comes to agree that the benefits of food biotechnology are desirable and the associated risks are acceptable, our society may fail to realize much of the potential benefits. Three historical cases of major technological innovations whose benefits and risks were the subject of heated public controversy are examined, in search of lessons that may suggest a path toward consensus in the biotechnology debate. In each of the cases—water fluoridation, nuclear power and pesticides—proponents of the technology gathered (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  39.  13
    Knowledge Indicative and Knowledge Conductive Consensus.Luca Gasparri - 2013 - Journal of the Philosophy of History 7 (2):162-182.
    A traditional proposition in the philosophy and the sociology of science wants that consensus between specialists of a scientific discipline is a reliable indicator of their access to genuine knowledge. In an interesting reassessment of this principle, Aviezer Tucker has analyzed the implications and the significance of this thesis in relation to historical research, and has established that parts of the historiographical community that display high degrees of consensus among their practitioners can be described in terms of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  40.  10
    The Public Dimension Of Scientific Controversies.Jeanine Czubaroff - 1997 - Argumentation 11 (1):51-74.
    Acceptance of three tenets of the doctrine of scientific objectivity, namely, the tenets of consensus, compartmentalization, and ahistorical truth, undermines scientists‘ appreciation of the importance of scientific controversy and consideration of the policy and value implications of controversial scientific theories. This essay rejects these tenets and suggests scientists appreciate theoretical diversity, learn rational means for adjudicating value differences, and cultivate conversational as well as written forms of communication.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41. Democracy, Public Policy, and Lay Assessments of Scientific Testimony.Elizabeth Anderson - 2011 - Episteme 8 (2):144-164.
    Responsible public policy making in a technological society must rely on complex scientific reasoning. Given that ordinary citizens cannot directly assess such reasoning, does this call the democratic legitimacy of technical public policies in question? It does not, provided citizens can make reliable second-order assessments of the consensus of trustworthy scientific experts. I develop criteria for lay assessment of scientific testimony and demonstrate, in the case of claims about anthropogenic global warming, that applying such criteria is (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   37 citations  
  42. The Ethics of Inquiry, Scientific Belief, and Public Discourse.Lawrence Torcello - 2011 - Public Affairs Quarterly 25 (3):197-215.
    The scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change is firmly established yet climate change denialism, a species of what I call pseudoskepticism, is on the rise in industrial nations most responsible for climate change. Such denialism suggests the need for a robust ethics of inquiry and public discourse. In this paper I argue: (1) that ethical obligations of inquiry extend to every voting citizen insofar as citizens are bound together as a political body. (2) It is morally condemnable for (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  43.  62
    Due Deference to Denialism: Explaining Ordinary People’s Rejection of Established Scientific Findings.Neil Levy - 2019 - Synthese 196 (1):313-327.
    There is a robust scientific consensus concerning climate change and evolution. But many people reject these expert views, in favour of beliefs that are strongly at variance with the evidence. It is tempting to try to explain these beliefs by reference to ignorance or irrationality, but those who reject the expert view seem often to be no worse informed or any less rational than the majority of those who accept it. It is also tempting to try to explain (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  44. Creating Scientific Controversies: Uncertainty and Bias in Science and Society.David Harker - 2015 - Cambridge University Press.
    For decades, cigarette companies helped to promote the impression that there was no scientific consensus concerning the safety of their product. The appearance of controversy, however, was misleading, designed to confuse the public and to protect industry interests. Created scientific controversies emerge when expert communities are in broad agreement but the public perception is one of profound scientific uncertainty and doubt. In the first book-length analysis of the concept of a created scientific controversy, David Harker (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  45.  15
    Anti-Anti-Vaxx: The Fairness-Based Obligation to Defer to the Expert Consensus.Stephen John - unknown
    This paper uses the case-study of controversy over the MMT vaccine to suggest that non-expert audiences might have a fairness-based "political" obligation to defer to expert scientific consensus. The first part of the paper notes various reasons why it is implausible to argue that non-experts are epistemically obliged to defer to the consensus. The second draws on the literature on vaccination ethics more generally to argue for the alternative political obligation to defer. The third section considers some (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  46.  39
    Richard Doll and Alice Stewart: Reputation and the Shaping of Scientific "Truth".Gayle Greene - 2011 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 54 (4):504-531.
    As the world watched the Fukushima reactors spew incalculable quantities of radionuclides into the sea and air and wondered what effect this would have on our health and that of generations to come, the warnings of Dr. Alice Stewart about low-dose radiation risk assumed a terrible timeliness. As industry, governments, and the media attempted to quiet the alarms, assuring us that radioactive releases will dilute and disperse and become too miniscule to matter, the reassurances of Sir Richard Doll, foremost among (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47. Four Decades of Scientific Explanation.Wesley C. Salmon & Anne Fagot-Largeault - 1989 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 16 (2):355.
    As Aristotle stated, scientific explanation is based on deductive argument--yet, Wesley C. Salmon points out, not all deductive arguments are qualified explanations. The validity of the explanation must itself be examined. _Four Decades of Scientific Explanation_ provides a comprehensive account of the developments in scientific explanation that transpired in the last four decades of the twentieth century. It continues to stand as the most comprehensive treatment of the writings on the subject during these years. Building on the (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   160 citations  
  48.  51
    Legend Naturalism and Scientific Progress: An Essay on Philip Kitcher's.Miriam Solomon - 1995 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 26 (2):205-218.
    Philip Kitcher's The Advancement of Science sets out, programmatically, a new naturalistic view of science as a process of building consensus practices. Detailed historical case studies—centrally, the Darwinian revolutio—are intended to support this view. I argue that Kitcher's expositions in fact support a more conservative view, that I dub ‘Legend Naturalism’. Using four historical examples which increasingly challenge Kitcher's discussions, I show that neither Legend Naturalism, nor the less conservative programmatic view, gives an adequate account of scientific progress. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  49.  31
    Determining Risk in Pediatric Research with No Prospect of Direct Benefit: Time for a National Consensus on the Interpretation of Federal Regulations.Celia B. Fisher - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (3):5-10.
    United States federal regulations for pediatric research with no prospect of direct benefit restrict institutional review board (IRB) approval to procedures presenting: 1) no more than "minimal risk" (§ 45CFR46.404); or 2) no more than a "minor increase over minimal risk" if the research is commensurate with the subjects' previous or expected experiences and intended to gain vitally important information about the child's disorder or condition (§ 45CFR46.406) (DHHS 2001). During the 25 years since their adoption, these regulations have helped (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  50. Deciding Together: Bioethics and Moral Consensus.Jonathan D. Moreno - 1995 - Oxford University Press.
    Western society today is less unified by a set of core values than ever before. Undoubtedly, the concept of moral consensus is a difficult one in a liberal, democratic and pluralistic society. But it is imperative to avoid a rigid majoritarianism where sensitive personal values are at stake, as in bioethics. Bioethics has become an influential part of public and professional discussions of health care. It has helped frame issues of moral values and medicine as part of a more (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   27 citations  
1 — 50 / 999