垃圾科学与环境政策:用误导性话语模糊公众辩论

Charles N. Herrick
{"title":"垃圾科学与环境政策:用误导性话语模糊公众辩论","authors":"Charles N. Herrick","doi":"10.13021/G8PPPQ.212001.359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although the term \"junk science\" has become a fixture in the popular media, content analysis of news stories for a five-year period reveals almost no evidence of s ubsta ntive or procedural inadequacies in the science used to support environmental or public health policies. Instead, the charge of \"junk science\" is meaningful primarily from a political or ideological perspective,and plays a strategic role in contrarian, anti-regulatory discourse.","PeriodicalId":82464,"journal":{"name":"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy","volume":"21 1","pages":"11-16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"34","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Junk Science and Environmental Policy: Obscuring Public Debate with Misleading Discourse\",\"authors\":\"Charles N. Herrick\",\"doi\":\"10.13021/G8PPPQ.212001.359\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although the term \\\"junk science\\\" has become a fixture in the popular media, content analysis of news stories for a five-year period reveals almost no evidence of s ubsta ntive or procedural inadequacies in the science used to support environmental or public health policies. Instead, the charge of \\\"junk science\\\" is meaningful primarily from a political or ideological perspective,and plays a strategic role in contrarian, anti-regulatory discourse.\",\"PeriodicalId\":82464,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"11-16\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"34\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13021/G8PPPQ.212001.359\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13021/G8PPPQ.212001.359","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

摘要

尽管“垃圾科学”一词已成为大众媒体的固定用语,但对五年期新闻报道的内容分析显示,几乎没有证据表明,用于支持环境或公共卫生政策的科学存在实质性或程序性缺陷。相反,对“垃圾科学”的指控主要从政治或意识形态的角度来看是有意义的,并且在反监管的话语中发挥着战略作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Junk Science and Environmental Policy: Obscuring Public Debate with Misleading Discourse
Although the term "junk science" has become a fixture in the popular media, content analysis of news stories for a five-year period reveals almost no evidence of s ubsta ntive or procedural inadequacies in the science used to support environmental or public health policies. Instead, the charge of "junk science" is meaningful primarily from a political or ideological perspective,and plays a strategic role in contrarian, anti-regulatory discourse.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Objectivity and Subjectivity in Theories of Well-Being Political Leadership and the Social Value of Privacy Some Scalar Issues in Climate Ethics Defining Scientific Integrity The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations in the Repatriation of Refugees
×
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