Masking Disagreement among Experts
- 1 June 2006
- journal article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Episteme
- Vol. 3 (1-2), 52-67
- https://doi.org/10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.52
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.Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- Why Deliberative Democracy?Published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH ,2004
- Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 2001
- Chain ReactionPublished by Cambridge University Press (CUP) ,1991
- Science as Social KnowledgePublished by Walter de Gruyter GmbH ,1990
- Modelling collective beliefSynthese, 1987
- The Origins of the American Scientific Debate over Fallout HazardsSocial Studies of Science, 1979
- Genetics in the atomic ageEugenics Quarterly, 1956
- CLASSIFICATION OF THE FACTORS OF EVOLUTIONCold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 1955
- A REVIEW OF SOME FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS AND PROBLEMS OF POPULATION GENETICSCold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 1955