为什么专家意见不一?

IF 0.4 3区社会学 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Critical Review Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI:10.1080/08913811.2020.1872948

J. Reiss

{"title":"为什么专家意见不一?","authors":"J. Reiss","doi":"10.1080/08913811.2020.1872948","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Jeffrey Friedman’s Power Without Knowledge argues forcefully that there are inherent limitations to the predictability of human action, due to a circumstance he calls “ideational heterogeneity.” However, our resources for predicting human action somewhat reliably in the light of ideational heterogeneity have not been exhausted yet, and there are no in-principle barriers to progress in tackling the problem. There are, however, other strong reasons to think that disagreement among epistocrats is bound to persist, such that it will be difficult to decide who has “the right answer” to a given technocratic problem. These reasons have to do with competing visions of the good society, fact/value entanglement, and the fragility of the facts of the social sciences.","PeriodicalId":51723,"journal":{"name":"Critical Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"218 - 241"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08913811.2020.1872948","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why Do Experts Disagree?\",\"authors\":\"J. Reiss\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08913811.2020.1872948\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Jeffrey Friedman’s Power Without Knowledge argues forcefully that there are inherent limitations to the predictability of human action, due to a circumstance he calls “ideational heterogeneity.” However, our resources for predicting human action somewhat reliably in the light of ideational heterogeneity have not been exhausted yet, and there are no in-principle barriers to progress in tackling the problem. There are, however, other strong reasons to think that disagreement among epistocrats is bound to persist, such that it will be difficult to decide who has “the right answer” to a given technocratic problem. These reasons have to do with competing visions of the good society, fact/value entanglement, and the fragility of the facts of the social sciences.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Review\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"218 - 241\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08913811.2020.1872948\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2020.1872948\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2020.1872948","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 18

摘要

杰弗里·弗里德曼的《无知识的权力》有力地论证了人类行为的可预测性存在固有的局限性，这是由于一种他称之为“观念异质性”的情况。然而，根据观念的异质性，我们预测人类行为的资源还没有耗尽，而且在解决这个问题方面没有原则上的障碍。然而，还有其他强有力的理由让我们认为，贵族之间的分歧肯定会持续下去，因此，很难决定谁对给定的技术官僚问题有“正确答案”。这些原因与良好社会的相互竞争的愿景、事实/价值纠缠以及社会科学事实的脆弱性有关。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Why Do Experts Disagree?

ABSTRACT Jeffrey Friedman’s Power Without Knowledge argues forcefully that there are inherent limitations to the predictability of human action, due to a circumstance he calls “ideational heterogeneity.” However, our resources for predicting human action somewhat reliably in the light of ideational heterogeneity have not been exhausted yet, and there are no in-principle barriers to progress in tackling the problem. There are, however, other strong reasons to think that disagreement among epistocrats is bound to persist, such that it will be difficult to decide who has “the right answer” to a given technocratic problem. These reasons have to do with competing visions of the good society, fact/value entanglement, and the fragility of the facts of the social sciences.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Critical Review POLITICAL SCIENCE-

CiteScore

1.30

自引率

12.50%

发文量

期刊介绍： Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society is a political-science journal dedicated to advancing political theory with an epistemological bent. Recurrent questions discussed in our pages include: How can political actors know what they need to know to effect positive social change? What are the sources of political actors’ beliefs? Are these sources reliable? Critical Review is the only journal in which the ideational determinants of political behavior are investigated empirically as well as being assessed for their normative implications. Thus, while normative political theorists are the main contributors to Critical Review, we also publish scholarship on the realities of public opinion, the media, technocratic decision making, ideological reasoning, and other empirical phenomena.