Drei Formen der Infragestellung der Bedeutsamkeit und Verlässlichkeit von wissenschaftlicher Expertise (Three forms of questioning the significance and reliability of scientific expertise) (2023)
Scientific expertise is questioned in different ways in various contexts. The frame of reference of these contestations varies, too. We distinguish between three forms of contestations: (1.) in the context of the sciences, where the reliability and validity of scientific knowledge is questioned; the frame of reference is scientificity. (2.) in the context of politics and policy, where the use of scientific expertise for decision-making is criticized. This critique refers to an insufficient problem-adequacy of scientific expertise. (3.) in the context of the transformation to a knowledge society, where the priority of scientific knowledge and scientific expertise towards other forms of knowledge and arguments is claimed. This kind of contestation rejects rational substantiation of political and administrative decisions in principle. Wissenschaftliche Expertise wird in unterschiedlichen Kontexten auf verschiedene Weise infrage gestellt. Ebenso variiert der Referenzrahmen, auf den sich die Infragestellungen beziehen. Im Text werden drei Formen der Infragestellungen unterschieden: (1.) im Kontext der Wissenschaften, hierbei werden Verlässlichkeit und Geltung des wissenschaftlichen Wissens hinterfragt, der Referenzrahmen für diese Art der Infragestellung bildet Wissenschaftlichkeit. (2.) im Kontext von Verwaltung und Politik, wo der Gebrauch der wissenschaftlichen Expertise für Entscheidungen kritisiert wird. Diese Kritik referiert im Allgemeinen auf eine nicht genügende sachliche Angemessenheit der wissenschaftlichen Expertise. (3.) im Kontext der Transformation zur Wissensgesellschaft, an der der Vorrang wissenschaftlichen Wissens und wissenschaftlicher Expertise gegenüber anderen Wissensformen und Argumenten beanstandet und damit die Referenz auf rationale Begründungen für politische und administrative Entscheidungen abgelehnt wird.
...MoreSimilar Citations
Article
Sven Dupré;
Geert Somsen;
(2019)
The History of Knowledge and the Future of Knowledge Societies
(/isis/citation/CBB931053546/)
Article
Stefan Böschen;
(2023)
Offensiver Dilettantismus: Entgrenzung von Wissensproduktion und die Frage nach Verlässlichkeit und kollektiver Urteilsbildung (Offensive amateurism: Dissolving the boundaries of knowledge production and the question of reliability and collective judgment )
(/isis/citation/CBB523641781/)
Article
Alexander Bogner;
(2023)
Legitimer und illegitimer Dissens Zu einem aktuellen Problem der Wissenschaft(sforschung) (Legitimate and illegitimate dissent. On a current problem of science (research))
(/isis/citation/CBB042699243/)
Article
Peat Leith;
Frank Vanclay;
(November 2015)
Translating Science to Benefit Diverse Publics: Engagement Pathways for Linking Climate Risk, Uncertainty, and Agricultural Identities
(/isis/citation/CBB370881735/)
Article
Sheldon Krimsky;
(November 2015)
An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment
(/isis/citation/CBB119149138/)
Article
Philippa Hellawell;
(2019)
“The Best and Most Practical Philosophers”: Seamen and the Authority of Experience in Early Modern Science
(/isis/citation/CBB806762885/)
Essay Review
Irzik, Gürol;
Kurtulmus, A Faik;
(2013)
Votes and Lab Coats: Democratizing Scientific Research and Science Policy
(/isis/citation/CBB001500174/)
Book
David Michaels;
(2020)
The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception.
(/isis/citation/CBB693959552/)
Article
Fujigaki, Yuko;
Tsukahara, Togo;
(2011)
STS Implications of Japan's 3/11 Crisis
(/isis/citation/CBB001231676/)
Essay Review
Irzik, Gürol;
Kurtulmus, A Faik;
(2013)
Votes and Lab Coats: Democratizing Scientific Research and Science Policy [Review Essay Number 1500174]
(/isis/citation/CBB001500175/)
Essay Review
Irzik, Gürol;
Kurtulmus, A Faik;
(2013)
Votes and Lab Coats: Democratizing Scientific Research and Science Policy [Review Essay Number 1500174]
(/isis/citation/CBB001500176/)
Essay Review
Irzik, Gürol;
Kurtulmus, A Faik;
(2013)
Votes and Lab Coats: Democratizing Scientific Research and Science Policy [Review Essay Number 1500174]
(/isis/citation/CBB001500177/)
Article
Daniele Cozzoli;
(2022)
History of Science and Political History: Intersections, Differences, Traditions
(/isis/citation/CBB771045448/)
Article
Sabin, Paul;
(2010)
“The Ultimate Environmental Dilemma”: Making a Place for Historians in the Climate Change and Energy Debates
(/isis/citation/CBB001021175/)
Article
Michał Rydlewski;
(2017)
Ludwik Fleck. Tradycje – inspiracje – interpretacje (red. Bożena Płonka-Syroka, Paweł Jarnicki, Bogdan Balicki). Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Fundacji „Projekt Nauka”, 2015, ss. 313 /A discussion of a book: Ludwik Fleck. Traditions, inspirations, interpretations.
(/isis/citation/CBB304111344/)
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
Luis Reyes-Galindo;
(January 2017)
Molecular Detector (Non)Technology in Mexico
(/isis/citation/CBB757495306/)
Article
Christy Spackman;
Gary A. Burlingame;
(June 2018)
Sensory politics: The tug-of-war between potability and palatability in municipal water production
(/isis/citation/CBB215070697/)
Article
Kristoffer Whitney;
(2020)
Valuing Shorebirds: Bureaucracy, Natural History, and Expertise in North American Conservation
(/isis/citation/CBB978624329/)
Be the first to comment!