The Fight Against Doubt
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 19982006 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Inmaculada De Melo-Martín (0000-0001-8656-8497), Kristen Intemann (0000-0003-0532-5771) |
| Año | 2018 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2018-10-17 |
| Open Access | No |
| Tipo | BOOK |
| Revista | The Fight Against Doubt (SOURCE_BOOK) |
| Editorial | Oxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1093/oso/9780190869229.001.0001 |
| OpenAlex | W2896924267 |
| ISBN | 9780190869229 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 50 |
Current debates about climate change or vaccine safety provide an alarming illustration of the potential impacts of dissent about scientific claims. False beliefs about evidence and the conclusions that can be drawn from it are commonplace, as is corrosive doubt about the existence of widespread scientific consensus. Deployed aggressively and to political ends, ill-founded dissent can intimidate scientists, stymie research, and lead both the public and policymakers to oppose important policies firmly rooted in science. To criticize dissent is, however, a fraught exercise. Skepticism and fearless debate are key to the scientific process, making it both vital and incredibly difficult to characterize and identify dissent that is problematic in its approach and consequences. Indeed, as de Melo-Martín and Intemann show, the criteria commonly proposed as means of identifying inappropriate dissent are flawed, and the strategies generally recommended to tackle such dissent are not only ineffective but could even make the situation worse. The Fight against Doubt proposes that progress on this front can best be achieved by enhancing the trustworthiness of the scientific community and being more realistic about the limits of science when it comes to policymaking. It shows that a richer understanding is needed of the context in which science operates so as to disarm problematic dissent and those who deploy it in the pursuit of their goals
Context (archaeology) · Dissent · Epistemology · Law and economics · Political science · Politics · Public relations · Scientific evidence · Scientific progress · Skepticism · Sociology · Climate Change Communication and Perception · History · Law · Misinformation and Its Impacts · Philosophy
Changing Debates and Shifting Landscapes in Science Studies
Industrial Distraction
Minority Reports
Science Denial
Expert Interviews, Good Questioning, and the Epistemic Duties of Journalism
Mobilization of expert knowledge and advice for the management of the Covid-19 emergency in Italy in 2020
Hype in science communication
Reporting on Science as an Ongoing Process (or Not)
The Epistemic Virtues of a Closed Mind
On Trusting Neighbors More Than Experts
Institutional requirement and central tracking of RCR training of all researchers and research eligible individuals
The strong program in embodied cognitive science
Emotions and Distrust in Science
Teaching Science as a Process, Not a Set of Facts
Revisiting the Basic/Applied Science Distinction
It Takes a Village to Trust Science
Public Conceptions of Scientific Consensus
Engaging with Science, Values, and Society
Trust in Scientific Expertise and the Varying Demands of Value Transparency
How to Philosophically Tackle Kinds without Talking about “Natural Kinds”
Thinking about Values in Science
Thank you for misunderstanding
Beyond Science Wars Redux
The commercialization of the biomedical sciences
The relevance of philosophy in times of the coronavirus crisis
Science communication and public trust in science
Online politicizations of science
Science and the Public
The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge
Public Engagement with Science
Vaccine Hesitancy
Uncomfortable science
The Independence of Research—A Review of Disciplinary Perspectives and Outline of Interdisciplinary Prospects
Controversias en la Investigación Clínica. Estudios específicos de Raza y el caso Bidil
Navigating dissent by managing value judgments
Exploring the limits of dissent
Value transparency and promoting warranted trust in science communication
Disagreement or denialism? “Invasive species denialism” and ethical disagreement in science
Earning epistemic trustworthiness
On masks and masking
Social and cognitive diversity in science
Feyerabend and manufactured disagreement
Disagreement in science
Taking the public seriously
When Is Scientific Dissent Epistemically Inappropriate
How Dissent on Gender Bias in Academia Affects Science and Society
Does it Harm Science to Suppress Dissenting Evidence
Commercial Interests and the Erosion of Trust in Science
Scientific values and value-based science reporting
Doubly disadvantaged
| Obras citantes distintas | 50 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 7,14 |
| Intervalo de citas | 2019 - 2025 (7) |
| Velocidad de citación | recent |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 47 |