Feyerabend and manufactured disagreement: reflections on expertise, consensus, and science policy (original) (raw)
References
Aklin, M., & Urpelainen, J. (2014). Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy. Environmental Science Policy,38, 173–177. Google Scholar
Bail, C., Argyle, L., Brown, T., Bumpus, J., Chen, H., & Fallin Hunzaker, M. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,115(37), 9216–9221. Google Scholar
Bailin, S. (1990). Creativity, discovery, and science education: Kuhn and Feyerabend revisited. Interchange,21(3), 34–44. Google Scholar
Barker, G. (2015). Beyond biofatalism: Human nature for an evolving world. New York City: Columbia University Press. Google Scholar
Baumtrog, M. (2016). The willingness to be rationally persuaded. In P. Bondy, & L. Benacquista (Eds.), Argumentation, objectivity, and bias: Proceedings of the 11th international conference of the ontario society for the study of argumentation (pp. 1–10).
Beatty, J. (2006). Masking disagreement among experts. Episteme,3(1–2), 52–67. Google Scholar
Beder, S. (1991). Controversy and closure: Sydney’s beaches in crisis. Social Studies of Science,21(2), 223–256. Google Scholar
Biddle, J. (2013). Institutionalizing dissent: A proposal for an adversarial system of pharmaceutical research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal,23(4), 325–353. Google Scholar
Biddle, J., & Leuschner, A. (2015). Climate skepticism and the manufacture of doubt: Can dissent in science be epistemically detrimental? European Journal for Philosophy of Science,5(3), 261–278. Google Scholar
Björnberg, K., Karlsson, M., Gilek, M., & Hansson, S. (2017). Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015. Journal of Cleaner Production,167, 229–241. Google Scholar
Bonney, R., Cooper, C., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V., et al. (2009). Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience,59(11), 977–984. Google Scholar
Boykoff, M., & Boykoff, J. (2007). Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum,38(6), 1190–1204. Google Scholar
Bschir, K. (2015). Feyerabend and Popper on theory proliferation and anomaly import: On the compatibility of theoretical pluralism and critical rationalism. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science,5(1), 24–55. Google Scholar
Carrier, M. (2017). Facing the credibility crisis of science: On the ambivalent role of pluralism in establishing relevance and reliability. Perspectives on Science,25(4), 439–464. Google Scholar
Chang, H. (2012). Is water H2O?: Evidence, realism and pluralism. New York City: Springer. Google Scholar
Collins, H., Bartlett, A., & Reyes-Galindo, L. (2017). Demarcating fringe science for policy. Perspectives on Science,25(4), 411–438. Google Scholar
Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science,32(2), 235–296. Google Scholar
Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Google Scholar
Csiszar, A. (2016). Peer review: Troubled from the start. Nature,532(7599), 306–308. Google Scholar
de Melo-Martín, I., & Intemann, K. (2013). Scientific dissent and public policy: Is targeting dissent a reasonable way to protect sound policy decisions? EMBO Reports,14(3), 231–235. Google Scholar
de Melo-Martín, I., & Intemann, K. (2014). Who’s afraid of dissent? Addressing concerns about undermining scientific consensus in public policy developments. Perspectives on Science,22(4), 593–615. Google Scholar
de Melo-Martín, I., & Intemann, K. (2018). The fight against doubt: How to bridge the gap between scientists and the public. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Dellsén, F. (2019). Should scientific realists embrace theoretical conservatism? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A,76, 30–38. Google Scholar
Doran, P. T., & Zimmerman, M. K. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90(3), 22–23. Google Scholar
Einsiedel, E., Jelsoe, E., & Breck, T. (2001). Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Demark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science,10(1), 83–98. Google Scholar
Engelhardt, H. T., Engelhardt, H. T., Jr., & Caplan, A. L. (Eds.). (1987). Scientific controversies: Case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Evans, R. (2014). Expert advisers: Why economic forecasters can be useful even when they are wrong. In M. Boumans & C. Martini (Eds.), Experts and consensus in social science (pp. 233–252). Cham: Springer. Google Scholar
Farrell, R. (2003). Feyerabend and scientific values: Tightrope-walking rationality. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1961). Knowledge without foundations. In Realism, rationalism and scientific method (pp. 50–78). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feyerabend, P. (1962). Explanation, reduction and empiricism. In H. Feigl & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Scientific explanation, space and time, Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. III, pp. 28–97). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1963). How to be a good empiricist: A plea for tolerance in matters epistemological. In B. Baumrin (Ed.), Philosophy of science: The Delaware seminar volume 2 (pp. 3–39). New York City: Interscience Publishers. Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1964). Realism and instrumentalism: Comments in the logic of factual support. In M. Bunge (Ed.), Critical approaches to science and philosophy (pp. 260–308). Princeton: The Free Press. Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1965). Reply to criticism: Comments on smart, Sellars and Putnam. Proceedings of the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science, 2, 223–261. Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1966). Dialectical materialism and the quantum theory. Slavic Review,25(3), 414–417. Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1968a). Science, freedom, and the good life. In J. Agassi, & M. Chiariello (Eds.), The philosophical forum (Vol. 1: 2, pp. 127–135).
Feyerabend, P. (1968b). Outline of a pluralistic theory of knowledge and action. In S. Anderson (Ed.), Planning for diversity and choice (pp. 275–284). Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1970a). Philosophy of science: A subject with a great past. Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science,5, 172–183. Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1970b). Experts in a free society. The Critic,29(2), 58–69. Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1970c). Consolations for the specialist. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 197–231). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1970d). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. In M. Radner & S. Winokur (Eds.), Analysis of theories and methods of physics and psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 17–130)., Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1975a). Against method (1st ed.). London: Verso Books. Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1975b). How to defend society against science. Radical Philosophy, 11(1), 3–8. Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1975c). ‘Science’: The myth and its role in society. Inquiry,18(2), 167–181. Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1977). Changing patterns of reconstruction. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,28(3), 351–369. Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1978). Science in a free society. London: Verso Books. Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1981a). More clothes from the emperor’s bargain basement: A review of Laudan’s progress and its problems. In P. K. Feyerabend (Ed.), Problems of empiricism, philosophical papers (Vol. 2, pp. 231–245). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1981b). Two models of epistemic change. In P. K. Feyerabend (Ed.), Problems of empiricism, philosophical papers (Vol. 2, pp. 65–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (2010). Against method (4th ed.). London: Verso Books. Google Scholar
Gillies, D. (2008). How should research be organized?. London: College Publications. Google Scholar
Goldenberg, M. (2016). Public misunderstanding of science? Reframing the problem of vaccine hesitancy. Perspectives on Science,24(5), 552–581. Google Scholar
Grundmann, R. (2018). The rightful place of expertise. Social Epistemology,32(6), 372–386. Google Scholar
Harding, S. (1992). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “Strong Objectivity”? The Centennial Review,36(3), 437–470. Google Scholar
Horst, M., & Irwin, A. (2010). Nations at ease with radical knowledge: On consensus, consensusing and false consensusness. Social Studies of Science,40(1), 105–126. Google Scholar
Hulme, M., & Mahony, M. (2010). Climate change: What do we know about the IPCC? Progress in Physical Geography,34(5), 705–718. Google Scholar
Intemann, K., & de Melo-Martín, I. (2014). Are there limits to scientists’ obligations to seek and engage dissenters? Synthese,191(12), 2751–2765. Google Scholar
Irwin, A. (2002). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (1992). What judges should know about the sociology of science. Jurimetrics Journal,32, 345. Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2006). Transparency in public science: Purposes, reasons, limits. Law & Contemporary Problems,69, 21. Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2011). Cosmopolitan knowledge: Climate science and global civic epistemology. In J. Dryzek, R. Norgaard, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2012). Science and public reason. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S., & Simmet, H. (2017). No funeral bells: Public reason in a ‘Post-Truth’ age. Social Studies of Science,47(5), 751–770. Google Scholar
Jayasinghe, U., Marsh, H., & Bond, N. (2003). A multilevel cross-classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: The effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society),166(3), 279–300. Google Scholar
Joss, S., & Brownlea, A. (1999). Considering the concept of procedural justice for public policy-and decision-making in science and technology. Science and Public Policy,26(5), 321–330. Google Scholar
Kahan, D., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L., Braman, D., et al. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change,2(10), 732. Google Scholar
Kathlene, L., & Martin, J. (1991). Enhancing citizen participation: Panel designs, perspectives, and policy formation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,10(1), 46–63. Google Scholar
King, N. (2012). Disagreement: What’s the problem? Or a good peer is hard to find. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,85(2), 249–272. Google Scholar
Lee, C. (2015). Commensuration bias in peer review. Philosophy of Science,82(5), 1272–1283. Google Scholar
Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change,77(1–2), 45–72. Google Scholar
Leuschner, A. (2018). Is it appropriate to ‘Target’ inappropriate dissent? On the normative consequences of climate skepticism. Synthese,195(3), 1255–1271. Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U., Seifert, C., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,13(3), 106–131. Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S., Oreskes, N., Risbey, J., Newell, B., & Smithson, M. (2015). Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community. Global Environmental Change,33, 1–13. Google Scholar
Lloyd, E. (1997). Feyerabend, mill, and pluralism. Philosophy of Science,64, S396–S407. Google Scholar
Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
Lundh, A., Sismondo, S., Lexchin, J., Busuioc, O., & Bero, L. (2012). Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database System Review, 12(12).
Manchak, J. B. (2020). On Feyerabend, general relativity, and ‘Unreasonable’ universes. In K. Bschir, & J. Shaw (Eds.), Interpreting Feyerabend: Critical papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mann, M. E. (2012). The hockey stick and the climate wars. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Google Scholar
Motterlini, M. (Ed.). (1999). For and against method, including Lakatos’s lectures on scientific method, and the Lakatos–Feyerabend correspondence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
Naess, A. (1972). The pluralist and possibilist aspect of the scientific enterprise. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget Press. Google Scholar
Neurath, O. (1983). Individual sciences, unified science, pseudorationalism. In R. S. Cohen, & M. Neurath (Eds.), Philosophical papers 1913_–_1946 (pp. 132–138). Netherlands: Springer. Google Scholar
Oreskes, N. (2004a). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science,306(5702), 1686. Google Scholar
Oreskes, N. (2004b). Science and public policy: What’s proof got to do with it? Environmental Science & Policy,7(5), 369–383. Google Scholar
Oreskes, N. (2007). The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we’re not wrong? In J. DiMento, & P. Doughman (Eds.), Climate change: What it means for us, our children, and our grandchildren (pp. 65–99). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Oreskes, N. (2017). Response by Oreskes to “Beyond Counting Climate Consensus”. Environmental Communication,11(6), 731–732. Google Scholar
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2008). Challenging knowledge: How climate science became a victim of the cold war. Contingency and Dissent in Science Project, Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2011). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from Tobacco smoke to global warming. Indianapolis: Bloomsbury Publishing. Google Scholar
Pearce, W., Grundmann, R., Hulme, M., Raman, S., Hadley Kershaw, E., & Tsouvalis, J. (2017). A reply to cook and Oreskes on climate science consensus messaging. Environmental Communication,11(6), 736–739. Google Scholar
Perl, A., Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2018). Policy-making and truthiness: Can existing policy models cope with politicized evidence and willful ignorance in a “Post-Fact” world?” Policy Sciences, 51(4), 1–20. Google Scholar
Preston, J. (1997). Feyerabend: Philosophy, science and society. Hoboken: Wiley. Google Scholar
Ritson, S. (2016). ‘Crackpots’ and ‘Active Researchers’: The controversy over links between arXiv and the scientific blogosphere. Social Studies of Science,46(4), 607–628. Google Scholar
Roe, S. (2020). A way forward for citizen science: Advice from a Madman. In K. Bschir, & J. Shaw (Eds.), Interpreting Feyerabend: Critical papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rowbottom, D. (2011). Kuhn vs. Popper on criticism and dogmatism in science: A resolution at the group level. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A,42(1), 117–124. Google Scholar
Selinger, E. (2003). Feyerabend’s democratic critique of expertise. Critical Review,15(3–4), 359–373. Google Scholar
Shaw, J. (2017). Was Feyerabend an anarchist? The structure(s) of ‘Anything Goes’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A,64, 11–21. Google Scholar
Simonsen, W. (2018). Citizen participation in resource allocation. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
Sismondo, S. (2008). Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: A qualitative systematic review. Contemporary Clinical Trials,29(2), 109–113. Google Scholar
Sismondo, S. (2018). Ghost managed medicine: Big pharma’s invisible hands. Manchester: Mattering Press. Google Scholar
Smith, K. (2018). The public policy theory primer. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
Sorgner, H. (2016). Challenging expertise: Paul Feyerabend vs. Harry Collins & Robert Evans on democracy, public participation and scientific authority: Paul Feyerabend vs. Harry Collins & Robert evans on scientific authority and public participation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A,57, 114–120. Google Scholar
Stanford, K. (2006). Exceeding our grasp: Science, history, and the problem of unconceived alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Stanford, K. (2015). Unconceived alternatives and conservatism in science: The impact of professionalization, peer-review, and big science. Synthese, 196, 3915–3932. Google Scholar
Sutherland, W., & Burgman, M. (2015). Policy advice: Use experts wisely. Nature News,526(7573), 317. Google Scholar
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Feinberg, G., & Maibach, E. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLoS ONE,10(2), e0118489. Google Scholar
Welser, H. T., Gleave, E., Barash, V., Smith, M., & Meckes, J. (2009). Whither the experts? Social affordances and the cultivation of experts in community Q&A systems. In 2009 International conference on computational science and engineering (Vol. 4, pp. 450–455).
Wylie, A., & Sismondo, S. (2015). Standpoint theory in science. In J. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 324–330). Oxford: Elsevier. Google Scholar