Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Expertise: Epistemic and Social Conditions of their Trustworthiness

Carrier M (2010)
Analyse und Kritik 32(2): 195-212.

Journal Article | Published | English

No fulltext has been uploaded

Abstract
The article explores epistemic and social conditions of the trustworthiness of scientific expertise. I claim that there are three kinds of conditions for the trustworthiness of scientific expertise. The first condition is epistemic and means that scientific knowledge enjoys high credibility. The second condition concerns the significance of scientific knowledge. It means that scientific generalizations are relevant for elucidating the particular cases that constitute the challenges for expert judgment. The third condition concerns the social processes involved in producing science-based recommendations. In this context trust is created by social robustness, expert legitimacy, and social participation.
Publishing Year
ISSN
PUB-ID

Cite this

Carrier M. Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Expertise: Epistemic and Social Conditions of their Trustworthiness. Analyse und Kritik. 2010;32(2):195-212.
Carrier, M. (2010). Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Expertise: Epistemic and Social Conditions of their Trustworthiness. Analyse und Kritik, 32(2), 195-212.
Carrier, M. (2010). Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Expertise: Epistemic and Social Conditions of their Trustworthiness. Analyse und Kritik 32, 195-212.
Carrier, M., 2010. Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Expertise: Epistemic and Social Conditions of their Trustworthiness. Analyse und Kritik, 32(2), p 195-212.
M. Carrier, “Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Expertise: Epistemic and Social Conditions of their Trustworthiness”, Analyse und Kritik, vol. 32, 2010, pp. 195-212.
Carrier, M.: Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Expertise: Epistemic and Social Conditions of their Trustworthiness. Analyse und Kritik. 32, 195-212 (2010).
Carrier, Martin. “Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Expertise: Epistemic and Social Conditions of their Trustworthiness”. Analyse und Kritik 32.2 (2010): 195-212.
This data publication is cited in the following publications:
This publication cites the following data publications:

Export

0 Marked Publications

Open Data PUB

Sources

PhilLister: 1287

Search this title in

Google Scholar