Synthese

, Volume 177, Issue 3, pp 411–425 | Cite as

Trust, expertise, and the philosophy of science

Article

Abstract

Trust is a central concept in the philosophy of science. We highlight how trust is important in the wide variety of interactions between science and society. We claim that examining and clarifying the nature and role of trust (and distrust) in relations between science and society is one principal way in which the philosophy of science is socially relevant. We argue that philosophers of science should extend their efforts to develop normative conceptions of trust that can serve to facilitate trust between scientific experts and ordinary citizens. The first project is the development of a rich normative theory of expertise and experience that can explain why the various epistemic insights of diverse actors should be trusted in certain contexts and how credibility deficits can be bridged. The second project is the development of concepts that explain why, in certain cases, ordinary citizens may distrust science, which should inform how philosophers of science conceive of the formulation of science policy when conditions of distrust prevail. The third project is the analysis of cases of successful relations of trust between scientists and non-scientists that leads to understanding better how ‘postnormal’ science interactions are possible using trust.

Keywords

Science and society Trust Expertise 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Addelson K. P. (1983) The man of professional wisdom. In: Harding S., Hintikka M. (eds) Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science. D. Reidel, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson E. (1995) The democratic university: The role of justice in the production of knowledge. Social Philosophy and Policy 12(2): 186–219Google Scholar
  3. Benford R. (2002) Controlling narratives and narratives as control within social movements. In: Davis Je. (eds) Stories of change: Narratives in social movements. SUNY Press, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  4. Bidwell D. (2009) Is community-based participatory research postnormal science?. Science, Technology, and Human Values 34: 741–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Catton W. R., Dunlap R. E. (1980) A new ecological paradigm for post-exuberant sociology. American Behavioral Scientist 24: 15–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Code L. (1991) What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins H. M., Evans R. (2007) Rethinking expertise. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins H. M., Pinch T. J. (1998) The golem at large: What you should know about technology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Craig E. (1990) Knowledge and the state of nature: An essay in conceptual synthesis. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Crease R. (1999) Conflicting interpretations of risk: The case of Brookhaven’s spent fuel rods. Technology: A Journal of Science Serving Legislative, Regulatory, and Judicial Systems 6: 495–500Google Scholar
  11. Douglas H. (2005) Inserting the public into science. In: Weingart P., Maasen S. (eds) Democritization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 153–169Google Scholar
  12. Fricker M. (1998) Rational authority and social power: Towards a truly social epistemology. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 98(2): 159–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Funtowicz S. O., Ravetz J. R. (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Kluwer, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  14. Funtowicz S. O., Ravetz J. R. (1992) Three types of risk assessment and the emergences of post-normal science. In: Krimsky S., Golding D. (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, Westport, CT, pp 251–274Google Scholar
  15. Funtowicz S. O., Ravetz J. R. (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7): 735–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hardwig J. (1985) Epistemic dependence. Journal of Philosophy 82(7): 335–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hardwig J. (1988) Evidence, testimony, and the problem of individualism—response to Schmitt. Social Epistemology 2(4): 309–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hardwig J. (1991) The role of trust in knowledge. Journal of Philosophy 88(12): 693–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hill Collins, P. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (Rev. 10th anniversary ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Kitcher P. (1990) The division of cognitive labor. Journal of Philosophy 87(1): 5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kitcher P. (1992) Authority, deference, and the role of individual reasoning in science. In: Mcmullin E. (eds) The social dimensions of science. The University of Notre Dame Press, Notre DameGoogle Scholar
  22. Kitcher P. (1993) The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Norton B. G. (2005) Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  24. Rolin K. (2002) Gender and trust in science. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 17(4): 95–118Google Scholar
  25. Scheman N. (1993) Engenderings: Construction of knowledge, authority, and privilege. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Scheman N. (2001) Epistemology resuscitated: Objectivity as trustworthiness. In: Tuana N., Morgen S. (eds) Engendering rationalities. SUNY Press, Albany, NY, pp 23–52Google Scholar
  27. Shapin S. (1994) A social history of truth: Civility and science in the seventeenth century. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  28. Shrader-Frechette K. S. (1991) Risk and rationality: Philosophical foundations for populist reforms. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  29. Shrader-Frechette K. S. (2002) Environmental justice: Creating equality, reclaiming democracy. Environmental ethics and science policy series. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilholt T. (2009) Bias and values in scientific research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40: 92–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Williams P. J. (1991) The alchemy of race and rights. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  32. Woodard, S. (2005). Blending science and tradition in the arctic. Indian Country Today, March 30th ed.Google Scholar
  33. Wynne B. (1996) May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: Lash S., Szerszynski B., Wynne B. (eds) Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Philosophy DepartmentStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations