科学分歧，快速科学和高阶证据

IF 1.4 2区哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2023-05-29 DOI:10.1017/psa.2023.83

Dan Friedman, Dunja Šešelja

{"title":"科学分歧，快速科学和高阶证据","authors":"Dan Friedman, Dunja Šešelja","doi":"10.1017/psa.2023.83","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Scientific disagreements are an important catalyst for scientific progress. But what happens when scientists disagree amid times of crisis, when we need quick yet reliable policy guidance? In this article, we provide a normative account for how scientists facing disagreement in the context of “fast science” should respond and how policy makers should evaluate such disagreement. Starting from an argumentative, pragma-dialectic account of scientific controversies, we argue for the importance of higher-order evidence (HOE), and we specify desiderata for scientifically relevant HOE. We use our account to analyze the controversy about the aerosol transmission of COVID-19.","PeriodicalId":54620,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scientific Disagreements, Fast Science and Higher-Order Evidence\",\"authors\":\"Dan Friedman, Dunja Šešelja\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/psa.2023.83\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Scientific disagreements are an important catalyst for scientific progress. But what happens when scientists disagree amid times of crisis, when we need quick yet reliable policy guidance? In this article, we provide a normative account for how scientists facing disagreement in the context of “fast science” should respond and how policy makers should evaluate such disagreement. Starting from an argumentative, pragma-dialectic account of scientific controversies, we argue for the importance of higher-order evidence (HOE), and we specify desiderata for scientifically relevant HOE. We use our account to analyze the controversy about the aerosol transmission of COVID-19.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54620,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy of Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.83\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.83","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

科学分歧是科学进步的重要催化剂。但是，当科学家们在危机时期意见分歧时，当我们需要快速而可靠的政策指导时，会发生什么呢?在这篇文章中，我们提供了一个规范的解释，说明在“快速科学”的背景下，面对分歧的科学家应该如何回应，以及政策制定者应该如何评估这种分歧。从科学争议的论证，语用辩证法的叙述开始，我们论证了高阶证据(HOE)的重要性，我们指定了与科学相关的HOE的所需条件。我们用我们的账号来分析关于COVID-19气溶胶传播的争议。

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

Scientific Disagreements, Fast Science and Higher-Order Evidence

Abstract Scientific disagreements are an important catalyst for scientific progress. But what happens when scientists disagree amid times of crisis, when we need quick yet reliable policy guidance? In this article, we provide a normative account for how scientists facing disagreement in the context of “fast science” should respond and how policy makers should evaluate such disagreement. Starting from an argumentative, pragma-dialectic account of scientific controversies, we argue for the importance of higher-order evidence (HOE), and we specify desiderata for scientifically relevant HOE. We use our account to analyze the controversy about the aerosol transmission of COVID-19.

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

Philosophy of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学

CiteScore

3.10

自引率

5.90%

发文量

128

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Since its inception in 1934, Philosophy of Science, along with its sponsoring society, the Philosophy of Science Association, has been dedicated to the furthering of studies and free discussion from diverse standpoints in the philosophy of science. The journal contains essays, discussion articles, and book reviews.