The Bright- and Blind-Spots of Science

Why Objective Knowledge is not Enough to Resolve Environmental Controversies

Datos Bibliográficos

ID2369751
AutoresMichael Carolan (0000-0002-2691-0454, Colorado State University, autor de correspondencia), Michael S Carolan (Colorado State University)
Año2008
Volumen34
Número5
Páginas725-740
Fecha de publicación2008-09-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaCritical Sociology (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0896-9205 • E-ISSN: 1569-1632
EditorialSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/0896920508093365
OpenAlexW1985913428
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas22
Referencias citadas63

This article investigates why science often does not speak with one voice within the context of environmental controversies. I argue that sociologists must be willing to turn to those processes and phenomena that are internal to science. In doing this, we find that many environmental conflicts are products, at least in part, of science itself. What is it about science that helps to breed these conflicts? In answering this question, this article first reflects upon the effects that disciplinary and methodological diversity have on scientific disputes. Attention then turns to the topics of proof and consensus, highlighting how these terms have often been employed to amplify conflict. I then speak to how science presupposes values. The article concludes by making policy-relevant suggestions about how to 'do' environmental science in a way that acknowledges its various epistemic bright- and blind-spots

Discipline · Epistemology · Political science · Science communication · Science education · Social science · Sociology · Climate Change Communication and Perception · History · Law · Philosophy · Risk Perception and Management · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance