掩盖专家之间的分歧

IF 1.3 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology Pub Date : 2006-06-01 DOI:10.1353/EPI.0.0001
J. Beatty
{"title":"掩盖专家之间的分歧","authors":"J. Beatty","doi":"10.1353/EPI.0.0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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 of reaching consensus versus reporting accurately the nature and degree of disagreement among them.","PeriodicalId":46716,"journal":{"name":"Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology","volume":"106 1","pages":"52 - 67"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2006-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"58","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Masking Disagreement among Experts\",\"authors\":\"J. Beatty\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/EPI.0.0001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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 of reaching consensus versus reporting accurately the nature and degree of disagreement among them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46716,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology\",\"volume\":\"106 1\",\"pages\":\"52 - 67\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"58\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/EPI.0.0001\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/EPI.0.0001","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 58

摘要

有很多原因可以解释为什么科学专家可能会掩盖分歧,并公开支持“共同接受”的立场。在这篇论文中,我考虑了一群科学家的内部工作,他们不仅负责决定一个技术上困难的问题,而且还负责决定一个具有社会和政治重要性的问题:最大可接受的辐射剂量。我关注的是,在这个现实世界的情况下,对可信度、权威和专业知识的关注如何塑造了这个过程,通过这个过程,这个群体协商达成共识的竞争美德,而不是准确地报告他们之间分歧的性质和程度。
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
Masking Disagreement among Experts
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 of reaching consensus versus reporting accurately the nature and degree of disagreement among them.
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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
11.80%
发文量
48
期刊最新文献
The Value of Risk in Transformative Experience The Hard Problem of Access for Epistemological Disjunctivism In Defence of the Acquaintance Principle in Aesthetics Evidentialism, Judgment, and Suspension: Meeting Sosa's Challenges The Rationality of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy
×
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