Forbes, Curtis (Author)
Scientific claims implicitly invite criticism. While we might expect that challenging an epistemic authority in religious circles would be seen as an illegitimate activity (e.g. heresy) and met with suppression, challenging an epistemic authority in scientific circles is supposed to be a legitimate form of engagement, and should (ideally) be met with reasoned argument based in empirical evidence. Given this implicit invitation to challenge scientific claims, and the sweeping knowledge claims often made by today's scientists, it is hardly surprising that people outside narrowly defined scientific communities (i.e. science's public) often challenge the truth of scientific consensuses. The scrutiny of scientific claims by non-scientist members of the public is quite understandable and in many ways unobjectionable, given the role that science advice increasingly plays in our society's governance structures and public policy making. As scientists increasingly play policy-maker, they become doubly subject to public criticism: first as a scientist making substantive claims about reality and second as public-interest decision-maker making important decisions about public policy. Thus, for the scientist's social role as epistemic authority to remain justified, public criticism of science should ideally be entertained and answered by practicing scientists.
...MoreDescription Contents:
Article Lightman, Bernard (2011) Periodicals and Controversy. Spontaneous Generations (p. 5).
Article Ranalli, Brent Tibor (2011) A Prehistory of Peer Review: Religious Blueprints from the Hartlib Circle. Spontaneous Generations (p. 12).
Article Keller, Evelyn Fox (2011) What Are Climate Scientists to Do?. Spontaneous Generations (p. 19).
Article Maienschein, Jane (2011) Why Do Stem Cells Create Such Public Controversy?. Spontaneous Generations (p. 27).
Article Varughese, Shiju Sam (2011) Media and Science in Disaster Contexts: Deliberations on Earthquakes in the Regional Press in Kerala, India. Spontaneous Generations (p. 36).
Article
Matthew Hayes;
Noah Morritt;
(2020)
Michael W. Burke-Gaffney and the UFO Debate in Atlantic Canada, 1947-1969
(/isis/citation/CBB417665220/)
Article
Reuben Message;
(2019)
“The Disadvantages of a Defective Education”: Identity, Experiment and Persuasion in the Natural History of the Salmon and Parr Controversy, C. 1825–1850
(/isis/citation/CBB163742684/)
Book
Inmaculada de Melo-Martín;
Kristen Intemann;
(2018)
The Fight Against Doubt: How to Bridge the Gap Between Scientists and the Public
(/isis/citation/CBB549674958/)
Article
Lightman, Bernard;
(2011)
Periodicals and Controversy
(/isis/citation/CBB001220691/)
Article
Maienschein, Jane;
(2011)
Why Do Stem Cells Create Such Public Controversy?
(/isis/citation/CBB001220694/)
Article
Varughese, Shiju Sam;
(2011)
Media and Science in Disaster Contexts: Deliberations on Earthquakes in the Regional Press in Kerala, India
(/isis/citation/CBB001220695/)
Book
Liz Sevcenko;
(2022)
Public History for a Post-Truth Era: Fighting Denial through Memory Movements
(/isis/citation/CBB650942848/)
Book
Fletcher, Ronald;
(1991)
Science, Ideology, and the Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal
(/isis/citation/CBB001422097/)
Article
Keller, Evelyn Fox;
(2011)
What Are Climate Scientists to Do?
(/isis/citation/CBB001220693/)
Book
Andrew Jewett;
(2020)
Science under Fire: Challenges to Scientific Authority in Modern America
(/isis/citation/CBB653749085/)
Article
Siemsen, Hayo;
(2010)
The Mach-Planck Debate Revisited: Democratization of Science or Elite Knowledge?
(/isis/citation/CBB001034670/)
Book
Finnegan, Ruth H.;
(2005)
Participating in the Knowledge Society: Researchers beyond the University Walls
(/isis/citation/CBB001022827/)
Article
Kidd, Ian James;
(2014)
Was Sir William Crookes Epistemically Virtuous?
(/isis/citation/CBB001421656/)
Article
Catherine Paradeise;
Ghislaine Filliatreau;
(2021)
Scientific Integrity Matters
(/isis/citation/CBB481223880/)
Article
Joris Mercelis;
(2020)
The scientist and the advertisement: Reklamegutachten in imperial Germany
(/isis/citation/CBB621920403/)
Article
Helene Sorgner;
(2016)
Challenging Expertise: Paul Feyerabend Vs. Harry Collins & Robert Evans on Democracy, Public Participation and Scientific Authority: Paul Feyerabend Vs. Harry Collins & Robert Evans on Scientific Authority and Public Participation
(/isis/citation/CBB123376778/)
Thesis
Emily L. Howell;
(2019)
Science & the Authoritarian: Deference to Scientific Authority & How It Disables Democratic Deliberation on Controversial Science Issues
(/isis/citation/CBB957399527/)
Article
Kerr, Anne;
Cunningham-Burley, Sarah;
Tutton, Richard;
(2007)
Shifting Subject Positions: Experts and Lay People in Public Dialogue
(/isis/citation/CBB000780233/)
Book
David Michaels;
(2020)
The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception.
(/isis/citation/CBB693959552/)
Article
Mitchell Kiefer;
(2021)
Re-basing Scientific Authority: Anthropocene Narratives in the Carnegie Natural History Museum
(/isis/citation/CBB937863298/)
Be the first to comment!