{"title":"选择性吸收:挑战是什么?","authors":"Inmaculada de Melo-Martin","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00271-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Sometimes, people who generally trust scientific testimony fail to accept scientific testimony concerning select, and equally well-warranted, scientific hypotheses. This problem is what Gerken calls “the challenge of selective uptake.” I argue here that it is unclear whether Gerken’s selective uptake of scientific testimony really occurs or how serious this problem actually is.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Selective uptake: What is the challenge about?\",\"authors\":\"Inmaculada de Melo-Martin\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s44204-025-00271-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Sometimes, people who generally trust scientific testimony fail to accept scientific testimony concerning select, and equally well-warranted, scientific hypotheses. This problem is what Gerken calls “the challenge of selective uptake.” I argue here that it is unclear whether Gerken’s selective uptake of scientific testimony really occurs or how serious this problem actually is.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93890,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian journal of philosophy\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian journal of philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44204-025-00271-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44204-025-00271-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Sometimes, people who generally trust scientific testimony fail to accept scientific testimony concerning select, and equally well-warranted, scientific hypotheses. This problem is what Gerken calls “the challenge of selective uptake.” I argue here that it is unclear whether Gerken’s selective uptake of scientific testimony really occurs or how serious this problem actually is.