The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

The Explanatory Value of Cognitive Asymmetries in Policy Controversies

På svenska

Author

Editor

  • Goodwin Jean

Summary, in English

Citing an epistemic or cognitive asymmetry between experts and the public, it is easy to view the relation between scientists and citizens as primarily based on trust, rather than on the content of expert argumentation. In criticism of this claim, four theses are defended: (1) Empirical studies suggest that content matters, while trust(worthiness) boasts persuasiveness. (2) In social policy controversies, genuine expert-solutions are normally not available; if trust is important here, then a clear role for cognitive asymmetry is wanting. (3) Social policy controversies pivot on values, so that biases and ideologies may explain participant behavior. (4) Few experts communicate perfectly; rather than cognitive ones, one might cite social differences

Publishing year

2012

Language

English

Pages

441-451

Publication/Series

Between Scientists and Citizens

Document type

Conference paper

Publisher

Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation

Topic

  • Philosophy

Keywords

  • ad hominem
  • ad verecundiam
  • deficit model
  • ethos
  • expert
  • lay audience
  • logos
  • trust
  • values

Conference name

Between Scientists and Citizens

Conference date

2012-06-01

Conference place

Ames, Iowa, United States

Status

Published

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISBN: 978-1478152347