Epistemic Interactions Within and Outside Scientific Communities: Different or Analogous Processes?

  • Carina G. Cortassa
Chapter

Abstract

Analysis of the gap between scientists and the public has generated a field of research and action—usually referred to as Public Understanding of Science (PUS) or, more recently, Public Engagement with Science and Technology (PEST)—whose evolution since the 1990s has been marked by controversies around different ways of understanding the nature of the problem and, as a consequence, of the most efficient practices directed to solve it. Amongst other contentious issues, the debate about laypeople’s so-called cognitive deficit has become trite and repetitive. The aim of this chapter is to propose an approach based on certain trends in social epistemology that seeks to overcome this virtually sterile discussion. It will be argued that the socio-epistemic interaction through which knowledge circulates among agents at imbalanced cognitive positions—experts and laypeople—does not substantially differ from those set with the same purpose in the innermost circle of specialized communities. In both contexts, the dialogue embraces a very similar thread of epistemic and extra-epistemic factors—such as the role of credit and authority attribution, the assessment of the informants’ reliability and trustworthiness, the adoption of a stance of trust and an attitude of epistemic deference—which shapes its dynamic and results. From this viewpoint, it is possible to work out the nature of the social circulation and appropriation of scientific knowledge by taking advantage of the approaches developed to explain what occurs in the circulation and appropriation of knowledge among experts.

References

  1. Adler, J. 2015. Epistemological Problems of Testimony. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. Zalta, Summer 2015 Edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/testimony-episprob/. Accessed 22 Jan 2016.
  2. Bauer, M., and I. Schoon. 1993. Mapping Variety in Public Understanding of Science. Public Understanding of Science 2: 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer, M., N. Allum, and S. Miller. 2007. What Can We Learn from 25 Years of PUS Survey Research? Liberating and Expanding the Agenda. Public Understanding of Science 16: 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blais, M. 1987. Epistemic TIT for TAT. Journal of Philosophy 84(7): 363–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broncano, F. 2006. Entre ingenieros y ciudadanos. Filosofía de la técnica para días de democracia (Between engineers and citizens. Philosophy of technique for times of democracy) Montesinos, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, C., and R. Evans. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, H. 2014. Rejecting Knowledge Claims Inside and Outside Science. Social Studies of Science 44(5): 722–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cortassa, C. 2016. In Science Communication, Why Does the Idea of a Public Deficit Always Return? The Eternal Recurrence of the Public Deficit. Public Understanding of Science 25(4): 447–459.Google Scholar
  9. Cortassa, C., and C. Polino. 2015. Promoting Scientific Culture: A Review of Public Policies in the Ibero-American Countries. Journal of Scientific Temper 3(3–4): 135–162.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, R. 1958. The Public Impact of Science in the Mass Media. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Survey Research Center.Google Scholar
  11. Dierkes, M., and C. Von Grote, eds. 2000. Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Durant, J., M. Bauer, G. Gaskell, C. Midden, M. Liakopoulos, and L. Scholten. 2000. Two Cultures of Public Understanding of Science and Technology in Europe. In Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, ed. M. Dierkes and C. Von Grote, 131–156. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Durrant, D. 2008. Accounting for Expertise: Wynne and the Autonomy of the Lay Public Actor. Public Understanding of Science 17: 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Einsiedel, E. 2007. Editorial: Of Publics and Science. Public Understanding of Science 16: 5–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans, G., and J. Durant. 1995. The Relationship Between Knowledge and Attitudes in the Public Understanding of Science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science 4: 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fricker, E. 2002. Trusting Others in the Sciences: A priori or Empirical Warrant? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 33: 373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 2006. Testimony and Epistemic Autonomy. In The Epistemology of Testimony, ed. J. Lackey and E. Sosa, 225–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldman, A. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 2001. Experts: Which One Should You Trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63(1): 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ———. 2006. Social Epistemology. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. Zalta, Fall 2006 Edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-social/. Accessed 22 Jan 2016.
  21. Hardwig, J. 1985. Epistemic Dependence. The Journal of Philosophy 82(7): 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ———. 1991. The Role of Trust in Knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy 88(12): 693–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Irwin, A., and M. Michael. 2003. Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kitcher, P. 1992. Authority, Deference and the Role of Individual Reason. In The Social Dimensions of Science, ed. E. McMullin, 244–271. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University.Google Scholar
  25. Lackey, J. 2006. It Takes Two to Tango: Beyond Reductionism and Non-reductionism in the Epistemology of Testimony. In The Epistemology of Testimony, ed. J. Lackey and E. Sosa, 160–189. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller, J. 1998. The Measurement of Civic Scientific Literacy. Public Understanding of Science 7: 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller, S. 2001. Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads. Public Understanding of Science 10: 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller, J. 2004. Public Understanding of, and Attitudes Toward, Scientific Research: What We Know and What We Need to Know. Public Understanding of Science 13: 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pardo, R., and F. Calvo. 2004. The Cognitive Dimension for Public Perceptions of Science: Methodological Issues. Public Understanding of Science 13: 203–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peters Peters, H. 2000. From Information to Attitudes? Thoughts on the Relationship Between Knowledge About Science and Technology and Attitudes Toward Technologies. In Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, ed. M. Dierkes and C. Von Grote, 265–286. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Reyes-Galindo, L. 2014. Linking the Subcultures of Physics: Virtual Empiricism and the Bonding Role of Trust. Social Studies of Science 44(5): 736–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sánchez Ron, J. 2000. El siglo de la ciencia. (The Century of Science). Madrid: Taurus.Google Scholar
  33. Shapin, S. 1992. Why the Public Ought to Understand Science-in-the-Making. Public Understanding of Science 1: 27–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thomas, G., and J. Durant. 1987. Why Should We Promote the Public Understanding of Science? In Scientific Literacy Papers, ed. M. Shortland, 1–14. Oxford: Rewley House.Google Scholar
  35. Torres Albero, C. 2005. Representaciones sociales de la ciencia y la tecnología (Social Representations of Science and Technology). Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas 111: 9–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Trench, B. 2008. Towards an Analytical Framework of Science Communication Models. In Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices, ed. D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, and S. Shi, 119–138. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vega-Encabo, J. 2012. Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia (Social Studies of Science). In Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad. Enciclopedia Iberoamericana de Filosofía (Science, Technology and Society. Ibero-American Encyclopedia of Philosophy), ed. M. Quintanilla and E. Aibar, vol. 32, 45–78. Madrid: Trotta.Google Scholar
  38. Wynne, B. 1991. Knowledges in Contexts. Science, Technology and Human Values 16: 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. ———. 1995. The Public Understanding of Science. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Peterson, and T. Pinch, 361–388. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. ———. 2008. Elephants in the Rooms Where Publics Encounter “Science”? A Response to Darrin Durant, “Accounting for Expertise: Wynne and the Autonomy of the Lay Public”. Public Understanding of Science 17: 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carina G. Cortassa
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.REDES – Center for Studies in Science, Development and Higher EducationBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Department of Educational SciencesNational University of Entre RíosEntre RíosArgentina

Personalised recommendations