Skip to main content
×
×
Home

WHEN THE EXPERTS ARE UNCERTAIN: SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND THE ETHICS OF DEMOCRATIC JUDGMENT

  • Melissa Lane
Abstract

Can ordinary citizens in a democracy evaluate the claims of scientific experts? While a definitive answer must be case by case, some scholars have offered sharply opposed general answers: a skeptical “no” (e.g. Scott Brewer) versus an optimistic “yes, no problem” (e.g. Elizabeth Anderson). The article addresses this basic conflict, arguing that a satisfactory answer requires a first-order engagement in judging the claims of experts which both skeptics and optimists rule out in taking the issue to be one of second-order assessments only. Having argued that such first-order judgments are necessary, it then considers how they are possible, outlining a range of practices and virtues that can inform their success and likelihood, and drawing throughout on ancient Greek insights as well as contemporary social psychology and sociology of knowledge. In conclusion the ethics of democratic judgment so developed is applied to the dramatic conviction of the members of an Italian scientific risk commission in L'Aquila.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      WHEN THE EXPERTS ARE UNCERTAIN: SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND THE ETHICS OF DEMOCRATIC JUDGMENT
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      WHEN THE EXPERTS ARE UNCERTAIN: SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND THE ETHICS OF DEMOCRATIC JUDGMENT
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      WHEN THE EXPERTS ARE UNCERTAIN: SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND THE ETHICS OF DEMOCRATIC JUDGMENT
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
mslane@princeton.edu
References
Hide All
Almassi, B. 2012. ‘Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness.’ Ethics and the Environment, 17: 2949.
Anderson, E. 2006. ‘The Epistemology of Democracy.’ Episteme, 3: 822.
Anderson, E. 2011. ‘Democracy, Public Policy, and Lay Assessments of Scientific Testimony.’ Episteme, 8: 144–64.
Baker, S. and Martinson, D. L. 2001. ‘The TARES Test: Five Principles for Ethical Persuasion.’Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 16: 148–75.
Barnes, J. (ed.) 1984. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, Vol. 2. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brewer, S. 1997–98. ‘Scientific Expert Testimony and Intellectual Due Process.’ Yale Law Journal, 107: 1535–679.
Brossard, D. and Lewenstein, B. V. 2010. ‘A Critical Appraisal of Models of Public Understanding of Science: Using Practice to Inform Theory.’ In Kahlor, L. and Stout, P. A. (eds), Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication, pp. 1139. New York, NY: Routledge.
Brown, M. B. 2009. Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Christiano, T. 2012. ‘Rational Deliberation among Experts and Citizens.’ In Parkinson, J. and Mansbridge, J. J. (eds), Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, pp. 2751. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, H. M. and Evans, R. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Curtis, A. and Wood, R. 2004. ‘Optimal Elicitation of Probabilistic Information from Experts.’ In Curtis, A. and Wood, R. (eds), Geological Prior Information: Informing Science and Engineering, no. 239, pp. 127–45. London: Geological Society.
Estlund, D. 1993. ‘Making Truth Safe for Democracy.’ In Copp, D., Hampton, J. and Roemer, J. E. (eds), The Idea of Democracy, pp. 71100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Estlund, D. 2008. Democratic Authority. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fischer, F. 2009. Democracy and Expertise: Reorienting Policy Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S. and Rogers, C. L. (eds) 1999. Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gentzler, J. 1995. ‘How to Discriminate between Experts and Frauds: Some Problems for Socratic Peirastic.’ History of Philosophy Quarterly, 12: 227–46.
Goldman, A. I. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Goldman, A. I. 2001. ‘Experts: Which Ones should You Trust?Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63: 85110.
Grasswick, H. E. 2010. ‘Scientific and Lay Communities: Earning Epistemic Trust through Knowledge Sharing.’ Synthese, 177: 387409.
Hall, S. S. 2011. ‘Scientists on Trial: At Fault?Nature, 477: 264–9.
Hardwig, J. 1985. ‘Epistemic Dependence.’ Journal of Philosophy, 82: 335–49.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (eds) 1982. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keohane, R. O., Lane, M. and Oppenheimer, M. forthcoming. ‘The Ethics of Scientific Communication under Uncertainty.’ Politics, Philosophy and Economics, in press.
Kitcher, P. 2006. ‘Public Knowledge and the Difficulties of Democracy.’ Social Research, 73: 1205–24.
Kitcher, P. 2011. Science in a Democratic Society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Kloprogge, P., van der Sluijs, J, and Wardekker, A. 2007. Uncertainty Communication: Issues and Good Practice. Utrecht: Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation.
Koppl, R. G. 2005. ‘Epistemic Systems.’ Episteme, 2: 91106.
Kusch, M. 2007. ‘Towards a Political Philosophy of Risk: Experts and Publics in Deliberative Democracy.’ In Lewens, T. (ed.) Risk: Philosophical Perspectives, pp. 131–55. London: Routledge.
Kutz, C. unpublished manuscript. ‘Epistemethics.’
LaBarge, S. 1997. ‘Socrates and the Recognition of Experts.’ In McPherran, M. (ed.), Wisdom, Ignorance, and Virtue: New Essays in Socratic Studies, pp. 5162. Edmonton: Academic Printing and Publishing.
Lane, M. 2013. ‘Claims to Rule: The Case of the Multitude.’ In Deslauriers, M. and Destrée, P. (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle's Politics, pp. 247–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Manson, N. C., and O'Neill, O. 2007. Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Markowitz, E. and Shariff, A. F. 2012. ‘Climate Change and Moral Judgement.’ Nature Climate Change, 2: 243–47.
McGeer, V. and Pettit, P. 2009. ‘Sticky Judgement and the Role of Rhetoric.’ In Bourke, R. and Geuss, R. (eds), Political Judgement: Essays for John Dunn, pp. 4873. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, A. and Beatty, J. 2011. ‘Political Authority and Scientific Authority: What does Deference Mean?’ Paper presented at UBC Workshop on Scientific Authority in Democratic Societies (on file with author).
Morgan, M. G. and Mellon, C. 2011. ‘Certainty, Uncertainty, and Climate Change.’ Climatic Change, 108: 707–21.
Nosengo, N. 2012. ‘Italian Court Finds Seismologists Guilty of Manslaughter.’ Nature News, 22 October, corrected 23 October, online.
Polson, D. and Curtis, A. 2010. ‘Dynamics of Uncertainty in Geological Interpretation.’ Journal of the Geological Society, 167: 510.
Reeve, C.D.C. (transl. and ed.) 1998. Aristotle: Politics. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Russell, N. J. 2010. Communicating Science: Professional, Popular, Literary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Solomon, M. 2001. Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sterman, J. D. 2011. ‘Communicating Climate Change Risks in A Skeptical World.’ Climatic Change, 108: 811–26.
Tetlock, P. E. 2009. Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Upin, C. (dir.) 2012. ‘Climate of Doubt.’ Frontline, broadcast on PBS, 23 October 2012.
Vidale, J. E. 2011. ‘Italian Quake: Critics' Logic is Questionable.’ Nature, 478: 324 [correspondence].
Zagzebski, L. T. 1996. Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zagzebski, L. T. 2012. Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Episteme
  • ISSN: 1742-3600
  • EISSN: 1750-0117
  • URL: /core/journals/episteme
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 36
Total number of PDF views: 378 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 674 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 17th August 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.