Scientific dissent
This article may have been previously nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific dissent exists. It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern:
If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming, or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it. This message has remained in place for seven days, so the article may be deleted without further notice. Find sources: "Scientific dissent" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR Nominator: Please consider notifying the author/project: {{subst:proposed deletion notify|Scientific dissent|concern=Poorly sourced personal essay in support of pseudoscience}} ~~~~Timestamp: 20160716191425 19:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC) Administrators: delete |
 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
Scientific dissent, i.e., dissent from scientific consensus, plays an important role in scientific research. Disagreements are useful for finding problems in underlying assumptions, methodologies, and reasoning, as well as for generating and testing new ways of tackling the unknown.[1]
At the same time, the history of science knows many notable cases of suppressing scientific dissent. In modern times, with the increased role of science on the society and the politicization of science, a new aspect gained prominence: effects of scientific dissent on public policies.[1]
Scientific dissent as norm of scientific inquiry
Miriam Solomon in her book Social Empiricism argues that scientific dissent is the normal state of scientific inquiry, rather than a conflict situation that needs resolution. She argues that disagreements of individual scientists about the proper direction of research is not cause for concern, because scientific rationality must be assessed at the level of the scientific community.[2] As long as all theories being pursued yield some unique empirical successes, Solomon argues that their pursuit is worthwhile and even consistent with the common view that science aims at truth.[3] In Solomon's view, competing scientific theories can even be inconsistent with one another while each containing some degree of truth.[3] It is not possible to know at the time which features of a successful theory are responsible for its empirical success, and successful theories often have core assumptions that are incorrect.[3]
False scientific dissent
In modern times pseudoscience and conspiracy theories often try to disguise itself as "scientific dissent" to take an advantage of the benefit of doubt. Such cases are typically recognized by lack of crucial elements of scientific approach: insufficent evidence base, lack of rigor and control, etc.[4]
Lack of discussion of claims coming from fringe science may be presented as suppression by mainstream science. This was described as "manufacrturing dissent" and discussed in the context of neo-creationism.[5] See A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism for more.
David Harker in the introduction to his book Creating Scientific Controversies, summarizes the history how tobacco industry worked towards manufacturing a controversy regarding the health effects of tobacco.[6]
Suppressed scientific dissent
- The Galileo affair was a sequence of events, beginning around 1610,[7] culminating with the trial and condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633 for his support of heliocentrism, on the basis of its apparent contradiction with the Bible.[8]
- Lysenkoism: In 1948, the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union announced that from that point on Lysenkoism would be taught as "the only correct theory". Soviet scientists were forced to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenko's research.[9] See also: Suppressed research in the Soviet Union.
Effect on modern public policies
Views which disagree with scientific consensus may have an adverse effect on the perception of science by general public and affect decision making in various policies. When prominently promoted without due proportion, dissenting views can create an impression of uncertainty to laypeople.[1][4] Common examples of such situation include global warming controversy and issues of public health and genetically modified organisms. Therefore scientists treat scientific dissent as problematic when it may have a significant impact on on public and policy-making, and try to mitigate it.[1][10] Inmaculada de Melo-Martín, Kristen Intemann distinguish three major strategies in battling allegedly dangerous scientific dissent: masking the dissent, silencing the dissent, and discrediting the dissenters.[1]
Melo-Martin and Intermann argue that these strategies come from a misdiagnosis: the real problem is not dissent, but public scientific illiteracy. Rather than focusing on dissent, scientists must concentrate on educating the general public, so that people could make educated opinions and recognize false claims and invalid arguments. They further argue that silencing dissent rather than promoting literacy incurs the risk of undermining the trust in science.[1] Others argue that the increased level of literacy per se is an insufficient safeguard against pseudoscientific myths. For example, V Raghunathan and M A Eswaran in their book Ganesha on the Dashboard expressed theis worries that Indians, despite known to be technology-savvy and smart, are "surprisingly unscientific in their daily lives" and lacking "scientific temper". [4]
Sheila Jasanoff, in the context of climate change, mentions a common argument that public opinion is poorly informed because petroleum industry manufactures uncertainties and the media exaggerate the dissent, but argues that it is insufficient for the understanding of the problem. She writes that studies of scientific controversies show that credibility of science depend not only on strong scientific consensus, but also on the power of persuasion of those who speak for science, especially in the situations of controversy. [11]
See also
References
- ^ a b c d e f Inmaculada de Melo-Martín, Kristen Intemann, "Scientific dissent and public policy Is targeting dissent a reasonable way to protect sound policy decisions?", EMBO Reports. 2013, 14(3): 231–235.
- ^ Wylie, Alison (2008). "A More Social Epistemology: Decision Vectors, Epistemic Fairness, and Consensus in Solomon's Social Empiricism". Perspectives on Science. 16 (3).
- ^ a b c Schmaus, W. (2005). "Book Review: What's So Social about Social Knowledge?". Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 35 (1): 98–125. doi:10.1177/0048393104271927. ISSN 0048-3931.
- ^ a b c "Keeping Modern Myths And Conspiracy Theories At Bay Read more from Asian Scientist Magazine at: http://www.asianscientist.com/2014/04/features/keeping-modern-myths-conspiracy-theories-bay-2014/", April 7, 2014, Asian Scientist Magazine
- ^ Matthew J. Brauer, Daniel R. Brumbaugh, "Biology Remystified: The Scientific Claims of the New Creationists," in: Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, MIT Press, 2001, ISBN 0262661241, pp. 322, 323
- ^ David Harker, Creating Scientific Controversies: Uncertainty and Bias in Science and Society, ISBN 1107069610, Cambridge University Press, 2015
- ^ Blackwell (1991, p.2). Blackwell (1991, p.50) dates the start of the Galileo affair to 1610. Finocchiaro (1989, p.1) puts it a few years later, in 1613.
- ^ Finocchiaro (1989, p.1): "By the 'Galileo affair' is meant the sequence of developments which began in 1613 and culminated with the trial and condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633."
- ^ Pamela N. Wrinch. "Science and Politics in the U.S.S.R.: The Genetics Debate". World Politics, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Jul., 1951), pp. 486-519
- ^ Michaël Aklina, Johannes Urpelainen, "Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy", Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 38, April 2014, pp. 173–177
- ^ Sheila Jasanoff, "Cosmopolitan Knowledge: Climate Science and Global Civic Epistemology", in: The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, 2011, ISBN 0199566607