Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:49:26.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trust of Science as a Public Collective Good

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2022

Matthew H. Slater Open the ORCID record for Matthew H. Slater [Opens in a new window]  and
Emily R. Scholfield
Matthew H. Slater*
Affiliation:
Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA
Emily R. Scholfield
Affiliation:
Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: matthew.slater@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic and global climate change crisis remind us that widespread trust in the products of the scientific enterprise is vital to the health and safety of the global community. Insofar as appropriate responses to these (and other) crises require us to trust that enterprise, cultivating a healthier trust relationship between science and the public may be considered as a collective public good. While it might appear that scientists can contribute to this good by taking more initiative to communicate their work to public audiences, we raise a concern about unintended consequences of an individualistic approach to such communication.

Type
Symposia Paper
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 89 , Issue 5 , December 2022 , pp. 1044 - 1053
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angler, Martin W. 2017. Science Journalism: An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.10.4324/9781315671338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baehr, Jason. 2011. The Inquiring Mind: On Intellectual Virtues and Virtue Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604074.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, John. 2017. “Consensus: Sometimes It Doesn’t Add Up.” In Landscapes of Collectivity, edited by Gissis, Snait, Lamm, Ehud, and Shavit, Ayelet, 179–98. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Besley, John C., and Tanner, Andrea H.. 2011. “What Science Communication Scholars Think About Training Scientists to Communicate.” Science Communication 33 (2):239–63.10.1177/1075547010386972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brulle, Robert J. 2014. “Institutionalizing Delay: Foundation Funding and the Creation of US Climate Change Counter-Movement Organizations.” Climatic Change 122 (4):681–94.10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chinn, Sedona, and Sol Hart, P.. 2021. “Effects of Consensus Messages and Political Ideology on Climate Change Attitudes: Inconsistent Findings and the Effect of a Pretest.” Climatic Change 167 (3–4):47.10.1007/s10584-021-03200-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahlstrom, Michael F. 2014. “Using Narratives and Storytelling to Communicate Science with Nonexpert Audiences.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (Supplement 4):13614–20.10.1073/pnas.1320645111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunlap, Riley E., and McCright, Aaron M.. 2011. “Organized Climate Change Denial.” In The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, edited by Dryzek, John S., Norgaard, Richard B., and Schlosberg, David, 144–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T. 2012. “Managing Ambivalent Prejudices: Smart-but-Cold and Warm-but-Dumb Stereotypes.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 639 (1):33–48.10.1177/0002716211418444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, S. T., and Dupree, C.. 2014. “Gaining Trust as Well as Respect In Communicating to Motivated Audiences about Science Topics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (Supplement 4):13593–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldenberg, Maya J. 2016. “Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy.” Perspectives on Science 24 (5):552–81.10.1162/POSC_a_00223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, Maya J., and Christopher, McCron. 2017. “‘The Science is Clear!’: Media Uptake of Health Research into Vaccine Hesitancy.” In Knowing and Acting in Medicine, edited by Robyn Bluhm, 113–132. London: Roman & Littlefield International.Google Scholar
Grasswick, Heidi. 2018. “Understanding Epistemic Trust Injustices and Their Harms.” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 84 (November):69–91.10.1017/S1358246118000553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guston, David H. 2014. “Building the Capacity for Public Engagement with Science in the United States.” Public Understanding of Science 23 (1):53–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. 2018. “Crisis or Self-Correction: Rethinking Media Narratives about the Well-Being of Science.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, March, 201708276.Google Scholar
Jones, Karen. 1996. “Trust as an Affective Attitude.” Ethics 107:4–25.10.1086/233694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, Dan. 2017. “The ‘Gateway Belief’ Illusion: Reanalyzing the Results of a Scientific-Consensus Messaging Study.” Journal of Science Communication 16 (5):A03.10.22323/2.16050203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, Dan, Jenkins-Smith, Hank, and Braman, Donald. 2011. “Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus.” Journal of Risk Research 14 (2):147–74.10.1080/13669877.2010.511246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, Dan, Asheley Landrum, Katie Carpenter, Helft, Laura, and Hall Jamieson, Kathleen. 2017. “Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing.” Political Psychology 38 (S1):179–99.10.1111/pops.12396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, Dan, and Landrum, Asheley R.. 2017. “A Tale of Two Vaccines—and Their Science Communication Environments.” The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication, 165–72. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kenner, Robert. 2014. Merchants of Doubt. Mongrel Media, Sony Pictures Classics.Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, Stephan, Gignac, Gilles E., and Vaughan, Samuel. 2013. “The Pivotal Role of Perceived Scientific Consensus in Acceptance of Science.” Nature Climate Change 3 (4):399–404.10.1038/nclimate1720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691209753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Boaz. 2013. “When Is Consensus Knowledge Based? Distinguishing Shared Knowledge from Mere Agreement.” Synthese 190 (7):1293–1316.10.1007/s11229-012-0225-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Adam. 2014. “Shared Knowledge from Individual Vice: The Role of Unworthy Epistemic Emotions.” Philosophical Inquiries 2 (1):163–72.Google Scholar
Nabi, Robin, Gustafson, Abel, and Jensen, Risa. 2018. “Effects of Scanning Health News Headlines on Trust in Science: An Emotional Framing Perspective.” Presented at the 68th Annual Convention of the International Communication Association, Prague, Czech Republic, May 27.Google Scholar
Olson, Randy. 2018. Don’t Be Such a Scientist. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Island Press.10.5822/978-1-61091-918-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi. 2004. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” Science 306 (5702):1686–1686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oreskes, Naomi. 2019. Why Trust Science? Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi, and Conway, Erik M.. 2010a. Merchants of Doubt. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Oreskes, Naomi, and Conway, Erik M.. 2010b. “Defeating the Merchants of Doubt.” Nature 465 (7299): 686–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennock, Robert T. 2019. An Instinct for Truth: Curiosity and the Moral Character of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/11218.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, Uwe. 2021. “Illegitimate Values, Confirmation Bias, and Mandevillian Cognition in Science.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72 (4):1061–81.10.1093/bjps/axy079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahm, Jrène. 1997. “Probing Stereotypes through Students’ Drawings of Scientists.” American Journal of Physics 65 (8):774.10.1119/1.18647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, Stuart. 2020. Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth. New York: Metropolitan Books.Google Scholar
Slater, Matthew H., Huxster, Joanna K., and Bresticker, Julia E.. 2019. “Understanding and Trusting Science.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 50 (April):247–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, Matthew H., Huxster, Joanna K., Bresticker, Julia E., and LoPiccolo, Victor. 2020. “Denialism as Applied Skepticism: Philosophical and Empirical Considerations.” Erkenntnis 85:870–71.10.1007/s10670-018-0054-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, Matthew H., Huxster, Joanna K., and Scholfield, Emily. Forthcoming. “Public Conceptions of Scientific Consensus.” Erkenntnis.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-022-00569-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, Matthew H., Scholfield, Emily R., and Conor Moore, J.. 2021. “Reporting on Science as an Ongoing Process (or Not).” Frontiers in Communication 5 (535474):10.10.3389/fcomm.2020.535474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, Miriam. 2007. “The Social Epistemology of NIH Consensus Conferences.” In Establishing Medical Reality, edited by Kincaid, Harold and McKitrick, Jennifer, 90:167–77. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.10.1007/1-4020-5216-2_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Linden, Sander L., Leiserowitz, Anthony A., Feinberg, Geoffrey D., and Maibach, Edward W.. 2015. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence.” PLOS ONE 10 (2):e0118489.10.1371/journal.pone.0118489CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wynne, Brian. 2006. “Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science—Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?” Public Health Genomics 9 (3):211–20.10.1159/000092659CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed