Article ID: CBB042699243

Legitimer und illegitimer Dissens Zu einem aktuellen Problem der Wissenschaft(sforschung) (Legitimate and illegitimate dissent. On a current problem of science (research)) (2023)

unapi

In many tenacious controversies, such as climate change, genetic engineering or vaccination, permanent dissent in the form of (pseudo)scientific counter-expertise is considered a central obstacle on the way to progressive politics. For this reason, attempts to find criteria for differentiating between legitimate and illegitimate dissent are becom- ing increasingly common in science and technology studies, in order to effectively end annoying and unproductive disputes with normatively disagreeable dissenting voices. In this context, three lines of argumentation have now become established: A first variant relies on meta-expertise, i.e., interdisciplinary panels of experts should determine the boundary between relevant and irrelevant knowledge claims. A second variant relies on participation, i.e., small groups of well-informed citizens should judge whether a particular dissent deserves public attention or not. A third variant rejects the search for unambiguous criteria and advocates strengthening trust in science in order to remove the basis for resonance from illegitimate dissent. What all three variants have in common is that they believe in a defini- tive, generalizable solution. Constructive dissent management, however, according to the core thesis of this article, should not stop at the level of knowledge and only critically examine the epistemic quality of knowledge claims. Rather, it is necessary to reveal the normative premises of the opponents, i.e., the normative sources of their specific ontology and methodology, in order to effectively invalidate cumbersome dissent. In vielen zäh verlaufenden Kontroversen, etwa um den Klimawandel, die grüne Gentechnik oder das Impfen, gilt dauerhafter Dissens in Form (pseudo-)wissenschaftlicher Gegenexpertise als zentrales Hindernis auf dem Weg zu einer fortschrittlichen Politik. Es häufen sich daher in der Wissenschaftsforschung die Versuche, Kriterien für die Unterscheidung zwischen legitimem und illegitimem Dissens zu finden, um auf diese Weise lästige und unproduktive Auseinandersetzungen mit normativ unliebsamen Gegenstimmen wirkungsvoll beenden zu können. In diesem Kontext haben sich inzwischen drei Argumentationslinien etabliert: Eine erste Variante setzt auf Metaexpertise, d.h., interdisziplinär zusammengesetzte Expertengremien sollen über die Grenze zwischen relevanten und irrelevanten Wissensansprüchen bestimmen. Eine zweite Variante setzt auf Partizipation, d. h., kleine Gruppen gut informierter Bürger sollen darüber urteilen, ob ein bestimmter Dissens öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit verdient oder nicht. Eine dritte Variante verwirft die Suche nach eindeutigen Kriterien und plädiert dafür, das Vertrauen in die Wissenschaft zu stärken, um illegitimem Dissens die Resonanzgrundlage zu entziehen. Allen drei Varianten ist gemeinsam, dass sie an eine große, generalisierbare Lösung glauben. Konstruktives Dissensmanagement jedoch, so die Kernthese dieses Artikels, sollte nicht auf der Ebene des Wissens stehen bleiben und nur die epistemische Qualität von Tatsachenbehauptungen kritisch prüfen. Vielmehr gilt es, die normativen Prämissen der Kontrahenten, also die normativen Quellen ihrer spezifischen Ontologie und Methodologie, zu rekonstruieren, um lästigen oder ärgerlichen Dissens wirkungsvoll entkräften zu können.

...More
Citation URI
https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB042699243/

Similar Citations

Article Katharina Steiner; Lukas Engelmann; (2023)
Circulation as a Visual Practice (/isis/citation/CBB849344111/)

Book Menachem Fisch; (2017)
Creatively Undecided: Toward a History and Philosophy of Scientific Agency (/isis/citation/CBB541662109/)

Article Daniele Cozzoli; (2022)
History of Science and Political History: Intersections, Differences, Traditions (/isis/citation/CBB771045448/)

Article Lukas M. Vergburkt; Peter Burke; (2022)
History of Ignorance: a 21st Century Project (/isis/citation/CBB662526038/)

Article Birch, Kean; (2013)
The Political Economy of Technoscience: An Emerging Research Agenda (/isis/citation/CBB001320493/)

Article Sven Dupré; Geert Somsen; (2019)
The History of Knowledge and the Future of Knowledge Societies (/isis/citation/CBB931053546/)

Article Cyrus C. M. Mody; (2020)
Historical Studies in Which Sciences? The Revolving Door of Engineering and Technology (/isis/citation/CBB703937785/)

Book Peter Harrison; Paul Tyson; (2022)
New Directions in Theology and Science: Beyond Dialogue (/isis/citation/CBB716991718/)

Article Bettina Bock von Wülfingen; (2023)
Circulation of Coronavirus Images: Helping Social Distancing? (/isis/citation/CBB113752329/)

Article Lissa Roberts; Seth Rockman; Alexandra Hui; (2023)
Historiographies of science and labor: From past perspectives to future possibilities (/isis/citation/CBB392846039/)

Article Giuliano Pancaldi; (2020)
Reframing the Sciences of the Long Eighteenth Century (/isis/citation/CBB517793271/)

Article Michael McCormick; (2019)
Climates of History, Histories of Climate: From History to Archaeoscience (/isis/citation/CBB876422141/)

Article Libby Robin; (2022)
Soil in the air (/isis/citation/CBB244485310/)

Article Peng Dai; Cody Tyler Williams; Allison Michelle Witucki; David Wÿss Rudge; (2021)
Rosalind Franklin and the Discovery of the Structure of DNA (/isis/citation/CBB767912949/)

Authors & Contributors
Birch, Kean
Bock von Wülfingen, Bettina
Burke, Peter
Debru, Claude
Dupré, Sven
Engelmann, Lukas
Journals
Acta Historica Leopoldina
Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte
Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences
Physis: Rivista Internazionale di Storia della Scienza
Historical Records of Australian Science
History of Science
Publishers
Routledge
University of Chicago Press
Concepts
History of science, as a discipline
Science and society
Theories of knowledge
Interdisciplinary approach to knowledge
History of medicine, as a discipline
Philosophy of science
People
Dyason, Diana
Fleck, Ludwig
Franklin, Rosalind
Plonka-Syroka, Bozena
Balicki, Bogdan
Jarnicki, Paweł
Time Periods
21st century
20th century
20th century, late
18th century
16th century
17th century
Institutions
University of Melbourne
Comments

Be the first to comment!

{{ comment.created_by.username }} on {{ comment.created_on | date:'medium' }}

Log in or register to comment