Switch to: Citations

References in:

“Trust Me—I’m a Public Intellectual”: Margaret Atwood’s and David Suzuki’s Social Epistemologies of Climate Science

In Michael Keren & Richard Hawkins‎ (eds.), Speaking Power to Truth: Digital Discourse and the Public Intellectual. Athabasca University Press‎. pp. 113-128 (2015)

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Masking Disagreement Among Experts.John Beatty - 2006 - Episteme 3 (1-2):52-67.
    There are many reasons why scientific experts may mask disagreement and endorse a position publicly as “jointly accepted.” In this paper I consider the inner workings of a group of scientists charged with deciding not only a technically difficult issue, but also a matter of social and political importance: the maximum acceptable dose of radiation. I focus on how, in this real world situation, concerns with credibility, authority, and expertise shaped the process by which this group negotiated the competing virtues (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry.Helen Longino (ed.) - 1990 - Princeton University Press.
    This is an important book precisely because there is none other quite like it.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   333 citations  
  • The Fate of Knowledge.Helen Longino - 2002 - Princeton University Press.
    "--Richard Grandy, Rice University "This is the first compelling diagnosis of what has gone awry in the raging 'science wars.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   232 citations  
  • On Liberty.John Stuart Mill, David Bromwich & George Kateb - 1956 - Philosophical Quarterly 55 (220):519-522.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   198 citations  
  • Masking Disagreement Among Experts.John Beatty - 2006 - Episteme 3 (1-2):52-67.
    There are many reasons why scientific experts may mask disagreement and endorse a position publicly as “jointly accepted.” In this paper I consider the inner workings of a group of scientists charged with deciding not only a technically difficult issue, but also a matter of social and political importance: the maximum acceptable dose of radiation. I focus on how, in this real world situation, concerns with credibility, authority, and expertise shaped the process by which this group negotiated the competing virtues (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Masking Disagreement Among Experts.John Beatty - 2006 - Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 3 (1):52-67.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • “Strong Objectivity‘: A Response to the New Objectivity Question.Sandra Harding - 1995 - Synthese 104 (3):331 - 349.
    Where the old objectivity question asked, Objectivity or relativism: which side are you on?, the new one refuses this choice, seeking instead to bypass widely recognized problems with the conceptual framework that restricts the choices to these two. It asks, How can the notion of objectivity be updated and made useful for contemporary knowledge-seeking projects? One response to this question is the strong objectivity program that draws on feminist standpoint epistemology to provide a kind of logic of discovery for maximizing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   25 citations  
  • Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal.Heather Douglas - 2009 - University of Pittsburgh Press.
    Douglas proposes a new ideal in which values serve an essential function throughout scientific inquiry, but where the role values play is constrained at key points, protecting the integrity and objectivity of science.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   133 citations  
  • 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 not knowledge based, hence courts’ deference (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Amending and Defending Critical Contextual Empiricism.Kirstin Borgerson - 2011 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 1 (3):435-449.
    In Science as Social Knowledge in 1990 and The Fate of Knowledge in 2002, Helen Longino develops an epistemological theory known as Critical Contextual Empiricism (CCE). Knowledge production, she argues, is an active, value-laden practice, evidence is context dependent and relies on background assumptions, and science is a social inquiry that, under certain conditions, produces social knowledge with contextual objectivity. While Longino’s work has been generally well-received, there have been a number of criticisms of CCE raised in the philosophical literature (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • The Global Warming of Climate Science: Climategate and the Construction of Scientific Facts.Tomas Moe Skjølsvold & Marianne Ryghaug - 2010 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24 (3):287-307.
    This article analyses 1,073 e-mails that were hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in November 2009. The incident was popularly dubbed 'Climategate', indicating that the e-mails reveal a scientific scandal. Here we analyse them differently. Rather than objecting to the exchanges based on some idea about proper scientific conduct, we see them as a rare glimpse into a situation where scientists collectively prepare for participation in heated controversy, with much focus on methodology. This allows (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • A Critical Context For Longino’s Critical Contextual Empiricism.Miriam Solomon & Alan Richardson - 2005 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 36 (1):211-222.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • 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.
    The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on such areas as public health, environmental science, and issues affecting quality of life. These scientists have produced landmark studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers. -/- Merchants of Doubt tells the story of how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   94 citations  
  • When is Consensus Knowledge Based? Distinguishing Shared Knowledge From Mere Agreement.B. Miller - 2013 - Synthese 190 (7).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations