Advertisement

Scientific Expertise and Engagement Experts

  • Adam S. Lerner
  • Pat J. Gehrke
Chapter
  • 137 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter offers a perspective that combats both cynical and idealist forms of public engagement. Engaging in a conversation with the “demarcation problem,” this chapter suggests that a rhetorical standpoint helps reframe the difference between expert and nonexpert discourse and alleviates the cynical mindset. This conceptual development invites us to reconsider the authority of publics to deliberate on technical and scientific issues. Following our discussion of demarcation, ending with the collision between Kuhn and Popper, we examine how demarcation is enacted in legal settings. Our final task in this chapter is to briefly review and synthesize some of the arguments we have made in previous chapters and suggest that a rhetorical sensibility can assist in producing more ecologically valid public engagement with science.

Keywords

Public Engagement Events Rhetorical Sensibility Legal Setting Cynical Purposes Rhetorical Studies 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Collins, H.M., and Robert Evans. 2002. The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Science 32 (2): 235–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Durant, Darrin. 2011. Models of Democracy in Social Studies of Science. Social Studies of Science 41 (5): 691–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Edbauer, Jenny. 2005. Unframing Models of Public Distribution: From Rhetorical Situation to Rhetorical Ecologies. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35 (4): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Edmond, Gary. 1998. Down by Science: Context and Commitment in the Lay Response to Incriminating Scientific Evidence During a Murder Trial. Public Understanding of Science 7 (2): 83–111.Google Scholar
  5. Edmond, Gary, and David Mercer. 1997. Scientific Literacy and the Jury: Reconsidering Jury ‘Competence’. Public Understanding of Science 6 (4): 329–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ———. 2006. Anti-social Epistemologies. Social Studies of Science 36 (6): 843–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Emery, Steven B., Henk A.J. Mulder, and Lynn J. Frewer. 2015. Maximizing the Policy Impacts of Public Engagement: A European Study. Science, Technology, & Human Values 40 (3): 421–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Epstein, Steven. 1995. Democracy, Expertise, and AIDS Treatment Activism. In Science, Technology, & Democracy, ed. Daniel Lee Kleinman, 15–32. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fuller, Steven. 2006a. A Step Toward the Legalization of Science Studies. Social Studies of Science 36 (6): 827–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ———. 2006b. The Philosophy of Science and Technology Studies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Graham, S. Scott. 2015. The Politics of Pain Medicine: A Rhetorical-Ontological Inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gross, Alan G. 2006. Starring the Text: The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hippocrates. On the Sacred Disease. The Internet Classics Archive. http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/sacred.html.
  14. Irwin, Alan. 1995. Citizen Science: A Study of People and Expertise and Sustainable Development. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Jasanoff, Sheila. 1995. Science at the Bar. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 2003. Breaking Waves in Science Studies: Common on H.M. Collins and Robert Evans, ‘The Third Wave of Science Studies’. Social Studies of Science 33 (3): 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuhn, Thomas. 2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 50th anniversary ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Laudan, Larry. 1983. The Demise of the Demarcation Problem. In Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, ed. R.S. Cohen and L. Laudan, 111–127. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lloyd, G.E.R. 1979. Magic, Reason and Experience: Studies in the Origin and Development of Greek Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2009. Disciplines in the Making: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Elites, Learning, and Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Locke, Simon. 1999. Golem Science and the Public Understanding of Science: From Deficit to Dilemma. Public Understanding of Science 8 (2): 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lynch, Michael. 2006. From Ruse to Farce. Social Studies of Science 36 (6): 819–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lynch, Michael, and Simon Cole. 2005. Science and Technology Studies on Trial: Dilemmas of Expertise. Social Studies of Science 35 (2): 269–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lynch, Paul, and Nathaniel Rivers, eds. 2015. Thinking with Bruno Latour in Rhetoric and Composition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Measles Cases and Outbreaks. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html.
  26. Mercer, David. 2016. Why Popper Can’t Resolve the Debate Over Global Warming: Problems with the Uses of Philosophy of Science in the Media and Public Framing of the Science of Global Warming. Public Understanding of Science: 1–14.Google Scholar
  27. Popper, Karl. 1992. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Rickert, Thomas. 2013. Ambient Rhetoric: The Attunements of Rhetorical Being. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wynne, Brian. 2003. Seasick on the Third Wave? Subverting the Hegemony of Propositionalism. Social Studies of Science 33 (3): 401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam S. Lerner
    • 1
  • Pat J. Gehrke
    • 1
  1. 1.University of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations