Episteme 7 (3):198-214 (2010)

Authors
Abstract
There can be good reasons to doubt the authority of a group of scientists. But those reasons do not include lack of unanimity among them. Indeed, holding science to a unanimity or near-unanimity standard has a pernicious effect on scientific deliberation, and on the transparency that is so crucial to the authority of science in a democracy. What authorizes a conclusion is the quality of the deliberation that produced it, which is enhanced by the presence of a non-dismissible minority. Scientists can speak as one in more ways than one. We recommend a different sort of consensus that is partly substantive and partly procedural. It is a version of what Margaret Gilbert calls “joint acceptance” – we call it “deliberative acceptance.” It capitalizes on there being a persistent minority, and thereby encourages accurate reporting of the state of agreement and disagreement among deliberators.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.3366/epi.2010.0203
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,703
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Fate of Knowledge.Helen E. Longino - 2001 - Princeton University Press.
Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News.David Christensen - 2007 - Philosophical Review 116 (2):187-217.
Why Deliberative Democracy?Amy Gutmann & Dennis Thompson - 2004 - Princeton University Press.
The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement.Thomas Kelly - 2005 - In John Hawthorne & Tamar Gendler (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Volume 1. Oxford University Press. pp. 167-196.

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Do Collaborators in Science Need to Agree?Haixin Dang - 2019 - Philosophy of Science 86 (5).
Democratic Consensus as an Essential Byproduct.Michael Fuerstein - 2014 - Journal of Political Philosophy 22 (3):282-301.

View all 21 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Ethics by Committee: The Moral Authority of Consensus.Jonathan D. Moreno - 1988 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (4):411-432.
Masking Disagreement Among Experts.John Beatty - 2006 - Episteme 3 (1-2):52-67.
Objectivity, Disagreement, and Projectibility.Paul Seabright - 1988 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 31 (1):25 – 51.
The (Severe) Limits of Deliberative Democracy as the Basis for Political Choice.Gerald F. Gaus - 2008 - Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory 55 (117):26-53.
Hierarchy of Scientific Consensus and the Flow of Dissensus Over Time.Kyung-Man Kim - 1996 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 26 (1):3-25.
Consensus by Aggregation and Deliberation.Richard Bradley - 2007 - Hommage a Wlodek: Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz.
The Epistemic Significance of Consensus.Aviezer Tucker - 2003 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 46 (4):501 – 521.
Pareto Unanimity and Consensus.Isaac Levi - 1990 - Journal of Philosophy 87 (9):481-492.
Bargaining and Strategic Demand Commitment.Daniel Cardona-Coll - 2003 - Theory and Decision 54 (4):357-374.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-10-27

Total views
114 ( #97,259 of 2,462,538 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #178,986 of 2,462,538 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes