Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 190, Issue 7, pp 1293–1316 | Cite as

When is consensus knowledge based? Distinguishing shared knowledge from mere agreement

  • Boaz MillerEmail author
Article

Abstract

Scientific consensus is widely deferred to in public debates as a social indicator of the existence of knowledge. However, it is far from clear that such deference to consensus is always justified. The existence of agreement in a community of researchers is a contingent fact, and researchers may reach a consensus for all kinds of reasons, such as fighting a common foe or sharing a common bias. Scientific consensus, by itself, does not necessarily indicate the existence of shared knowledge among the members of the consensus community. I address the question of under what conditions it is likely that a consensus is in fact knowledge based. I argue that a consensus is likely to be knowledge based when knowledge is the best explanation of the consensus, and I identify three conditions—social calibration, apparent consilience of evidence, and social diversity, for knowledge being the best explanation of a consensus.

Keywords

Social epistemology Knowledge Consensus Expert testimony 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Hagit Benbaji, Joseph Berkovitz, Jim Brown, Anjan Chakravartty, Steve Fuller, Yves Gingras, Sandy Goldberg, Arnon Keren, Kareem Khalifa, Laszlo Kosolosky, Yakir Levin, Isaac (Yanni) Nevo, Isaac Record, Jacob Stegenga, Eran Tal, Brad Wray, and two anonymous reviewers for useful comments and suggestions. I am grateful to the Azrieli Foundation for an award of an Azrieli Fellowship. Special thanks to Meital Pinto for her support and inspiration.

References

  1. Beatty, J. (2006). Masking disagreement among experts. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 3(1), 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben Menahem, Y. (1988). Models of science: Fictions or idealizations? Science in Context, 2(1), 163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben Menahem, Y. (1990). Inference to the best explanation. Erkenntnis, 33, 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgerson, K. (2009). Valuing evidence bias and the evidence hierarchy of evidence-based medicine. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 52(2), 218–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chakravartty, A. (2007). A metaphysics for scientific realism: Knowing the unobservable. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christensen, D. (2009). Disagreement as evidence: The epistemology of controversy. Philosophy Compass, 4(5), 756–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, L. J. (1992). An essay on belief and acceptance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, H. M. (1998). The meaning of data: Open and closed evidential cultures in the search for gravitational waves. The American Journal of Sociology, 104(2), 293–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Day, T., & Kincaid, H. (1994). Putting inference to the best explanation in its place. Synthese, 98(2), 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Douglas, H. (2012). Weighing complex evidence in a democratic society. The Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 22(2), 139–162.Google Scholar
  12. Douven, I. (2009). Uniqueness revisited. American Philosophical Quarterly, 46(4), 347–360.Google Scholar
  13. Duesberg, P. (1996). Inventing the AIDS virus. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duhem, P. (1954). The aim and structure of physical theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Epstein, S. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Feyerabend, P. (1970). Consolations for the specialist. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 197–230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fox, R. (1971). The caloric theory of gases: From Lavoisier to Regnault. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fukuda, Y., Shimoyama, T., Shimoyama, T., & Marshall, B. J. (2002). Kasai, Kobayashi and Koch’s postulates in the history of Helicobacter Pylori. In B. Marshall (Ed.), Helicobacter pioneers (pp. 15–24). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Fuller, S. (2002). Social epistemology (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fuller, S. (2007). The knowledge book: Key concepts in philosophy, science and culture. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Galen (1963). On the passions and errors of the soul, trans. Paul W. Harkins. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gelfert, A. (2011). Mathematical formalisms in scientific practice: From denotation to model-based representation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 42(2), 272–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gettier, E. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis, 23, 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gilbert, M. (1987). Modeling collective belief. Synthese, 73(1), 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gilbert, M. (1994). Remarks on collective belief. In F. F. Schmitt (Ed.), Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge (pp. 235–256). Lanham, MD: Rowman Littlefield.Google Scholar
  26. Gilbert, M. (2002). Belief and acceptance as features of groups. Protosociology, 16, 35–69.Google Scholar
  27. Goldberg, S. C. (2007). Anti-individualism: Mind and language, knowledge and justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goldman, A. I. (2001). Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1), 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (rev ed.). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  30. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 1 and 2. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hacking, I. (1992). Statistical language, statistical truth and statistical reason: The self-authentication of a style of scientific reasoning. In E. McMullin (Ed.), The social dimensions of science (pp. 130–157). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  32. Halfon, S. (2006). The disunity of consensus: International policy coordination as socio-technical practice. Social Studies of Science, 36(5), 783–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Intemann, K. (2009). Why diversity matters: Understanding and applying the diversity component of the National Science Foundation’s broader impacts criterion. Social Epistemology, 23(3–4), 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kant, I. (2007). Critique of pure reason, trans. N. K. Smith (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  36. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kusch, M. (2002). Knowledge by agreement: The programme of communitarian epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. La Caze, A. (2009). Evidence-based medicine must be. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 34(5), 509–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laudan, L. (1996). Beyond positivism and relativism: Theory, method, and evidence. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lehrer, K., & Wagner, C. (1981). Rational consensus in science and society: A philosophical and mathematical study. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Martin, E. (1991). The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles. Signs, 16(3), 485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mill, J. S. (1993). On liberty. In J. M. Dent (Ed.), Utilitarianism, on liberty, considerations on representative government (pp. 69–187). London: Everyman.Google Scholar
  45. Miller, B. (2012). The rationality principle idealized. Social Epistemology, 26(1), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morrison, M. (1999). Models as autonomous agents. In M. S. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science (pp. 38–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nye, M. J. (1993). National styles? French and English chemistry in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Osiris, 8, 30–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Okruhlik, K. (1998). Gender and the biological sciences. In M. Curd & J. A. Cover (Eds.), Philosophy of science: The central issues (pp. 192–208). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  49. Peirce, C. S. (1877). The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly, 12, 1–15.Google Scholar
  50. Pettit, P. (2006). No testimonial route to consensus. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 3(3), 156–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pritchard, D. (2005). Epistemic luck. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Psillos, S. (1994). A Philosophical study of the transition from the caloric theory of heat to thermodynamics: Resisting the pessimistic meta-induction. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 25(2), 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rescher, N. (1993). Pluralism: Against the demand for consensus. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Slocum, S. (1975). Woman the gatherer: Male bias in anthropology. In R. R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women (pp. 36–50). New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  55. Solomon, M. (2002). Social empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Statman, D. (1991). Moral and epistemic luck. Ratio, 4(2), 146–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stegenga, J. (2009). Robustness, discordance, and relevance. Philosophy of Science, 76(5), 650–661.Google Scholar
  58. Stegenga, J. (2011). Is meta-analysis the platinum standard of evidence? Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Science, 42(4), 497–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Steup, M. (2008). The Analysis of Knowledge. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/knowledge-analysis.
  60. Straus, E., Glasziou, P., Richardson, W. S., & Haynes, R. B. (2010). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach it (4th ed.). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
  61. Tanner, N., & Zihlman, A. (1976). Women in evolution. Part I: Innovation and selection in human origins. Signs, 1(3), 585–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thagard, P. (1999). How scientists explain disease. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Thagard, P. (2000). Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  64. Tucker, A. (2003). The epistemic significance of consensus. Inquiry, 46, 501–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Upshur, R. E. G. (2003). Are all evidence-based practices alike? Problems in the ranking of evidence. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 169(7), 672–673.Google Scholar
  66. van der Sluijs, J., van Eijndhoven, J., Shackley, S., & Wynne, B. (1998). Anchoring devices in science for policy: The case of consensus around climate sensitivity. Social Studies of Science, 28(2), 291–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vermeule, A. (2009). Law and the limits of reason. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Wagner, R. (2009). Mathematical marriages: Intercourse between mathematics and semiotic choice. Social Studies of Science, 39(2), 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Whewell, W. (1858). Novum organon renovatum: Being the second part of the philosophy of the inductive sciences. London: John W. Parker and Son.Google Scholar
  70. Worrall, J. (2002). What evidence in evidence-based medicine? Philosophy of Science, 69(3), S316–S330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wray, K. B. (2001). Collective belief and acceptance. Synthese, 129(3), 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zollman, K. J. S. (2010). The epistemic benefit of transient diversity. Erkenntnis, 72, 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Edmond J. Safra Center for EthicsTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations