On the political costs of scientific dissent
Some speech acts about science can result in many non-experts in a political community holding false or inaccurate empirical beliefs. But if people do hold false or inaccurate empirical beliefs, should we be concerned? If so, why should we be concerned? What's wrong, morally and politically speaking, with speech acts that misrepresent scientific testimony, or that otherwise count as misinformation about science? Philosophers of science have largely neglected these questions, despite such questions often being tied to 'dissent' about science. Instead, they have almost exclusively focused on the epistemological implications and benefits of dissent for knowledge production and scientific progress. Even those philosophers of science who in recent years have displayed scepticism towards dissent have focused their arguments on its negative epistemic effects within, and on, the scientific community and science itself. Instead, the aim of this thesis is to provide a better understanding of the nature of the nonepistemic consequences of dissent and the broader phenomenon of misinformation about science for non-experts and for society more broadly. To achieve this, I bring contemporary analytic social and political
Nash, Erin Jade
On the political costs of scientific dissent. Some speech acts about science can result in many non-experts in a political community holding false or inaccurate empirical beliefs. But if people do hold false or inaccurate empirical beliefs, should we be concerned? If so, why should we be concerned? What's wrong, morally and politically speaking, with speech acts that misrepresent scientific testimony, or that otherwise count as misinformation about science? Philosophers of science have largely neglected these questions, despite such questions often being tied to 'dissent' about science. Instead, they have almost exclusively focused on the epistemological implications and benefits of dissent for knowledge production and scientific progress. Even those philosophers of science who in recent years have displayed scepticism towards dissent have focused their arguments on its negative epistemic effects within, and on, the scientific community and science itself. Instead, the aim of this thesis is to provide a better understanding of the nature of the nonepistemic consequences of dissent and the broader phenomenon of misinformation about science for non-experts and for society more broadly. To achieve this, I bring contemporary analytic social and political
political cost scientific dissent speech_act science many non political_community hold false inaccurate empirical belief people hold false inaccurate empirical belief concern concern wrong morally politically speak speech_act misrepresent scientific testimony otherwise count science philosophers science largely_neglected question despite question often tie dissent science instead almost_exclusively focused epistemological implication benefit dissent knowledge production scientific progress even philosopher science display scepticism towards dissent focus argument negative epistemic effect within scientific_community science itself instead aim_provide good nature consequence dissent broader phenomenon science non society broadly achieve bring contemporary_analytic social_political