Science Advice in an Environment of Trust: Trusted, but Not Trustworthy?

IF 1.4 2区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Social Epistemology Pub Date : 2022-08-25 DOI:10.1080/02691728.2022.2101564
Torbjørn Gundersen, Cathrine Holst
{"title":"Science Advice in an Environment of Trust: Trusted, but Not Trustworthy?","authors":"Torbjørn Gundersen, Cathrine Holst","doi":"10.1080/02691728.2022.2101564","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper examines the conditions of trustworthy science advice mechanisms, in which scientists have a mandated role to inform public policymaking. Based on the literature on epistemic trust and public trust in science, we argue that possession of relevant expertise, justified moral and political considerations, as well as proper institutional design are conditions for trustworthy science advice. In order to assess these conditions further, we explore the case of temporary advisory committees in Norway. These committees exemplify a de facto trusted and seemingly well-functioning science advice mechanism. Still, this mechanism turns out to poorly realize some central conditions of trustworthy science advice. From this we draw three lessons. Firstly, it remains crucial to distinguish between well-placed and de facto trust. Secondly, some conditions of trustworthy science advice seem more significant than others and there are thresholds for realizing each condition. Thirdly, not only does the institutional design and organization of science advice matter more than often recognized; the trust and trustworthiness of the broader social and political context and institutional environment make a difference as well.","PeriodicalId":51614,"journal":{"name":"Social Epistemology","volume":"36 1","pages":"629 - 640"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Epistemology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2022.2101564","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper examines the conditions of trustworthy science advice mechanisms, in which scientists have a mandated role to inform public policymaking. Based on the literature on epistemic trust and public trust in science, we argue that possession of relevant expertise, justified moral and political considerations, as well as proper institutional design are conditions for trustworthy science advice. In order to assess these conditions further, we explore the case of temporary advisory committees in Norway. These committees exemplify a de facto trusted and seemingly well-functioning science advice mechanism. Still, this mechanism turns out to poorly realize some central conditions of trustworthy science advice. From this we draw three lessons. Firstly, it remains crucial to distinguish between well-placed and de facto trust. Secondly, some conditions of trustworthy science advice seem more significant than others and there are thresholds for realizing each condition. Thirdly, not only does the institutional design and organization of science advice matter more than often recognized; the trust and trustworthiness of the broader social and political context and institutional environment make a difference as well.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
信任环境中的科学建议:值得信任,但不值得信任?
摘要本文考察了值得信赖的科学咨询机制的条件,在这种机制中,科学家有义务为公共决策提供信息。基于对科学的认识信任和公众信任的文献,我们认为,拥有相关的专业知识、合理的道德和政治考虑以及适当的制度设计是提供值得信赖的科学建议的条件。为了进一步评估这些情况,我们探讨了在挪威设立临时咨询委员会的情况。这些委员会体现了一个事实上值得信赖且似乎运作良好的科学咨询机制。尽管如此,这一机制未能很好地实现值得信赖的科学建议的一些核心条件。从中我们可以得到三个教训。首先,区分良好的信任和事实上的信任仍然至关重要。其次,值得信赖的科学建议的某些条件似乎比其他条件更重要,并且每个条件都有实现的阈值。第三,科学咨询的制度设计和组织不仅比人们通常认识到的更重要;更广泛的社会和政治背景以及制度环境的信任和可信度也会产生影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
17.60%
发文量
60
期刊介绍: Social Epistemology provides a forum for philosophical and social scientific enquiry that incorporates the work of scholars from a variety of disciplines who share a concern with the production, assessment and validation of knowledge. The journal covers both empirical research into the origination and transmission of knowledge and normative considerations which arise as such research is implemented, serving as a guide for directing contemporary knowledge enterprises. Social Epistemology publishes "exchanges" which are the collective product of several contributors and take the form of critical syntheses, open peer commentaries interviews, applications, provocations, reviews and responses
期刊最新文献
Scientism and the Problem of Self-Referential Incoherence Testimonial Injustice from Countervailing Prejudices ‘Blackness’, the Body and Epistemological and Epistemic Traps: A Phenomenological Analysis The Contribution of Logic to Epistemic Injustice Friend or Foe? Rethinking Epistemic Trespassing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1