Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Vigilant trust in scientific expertise.Hanna Metzen - 2024 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 14 (4):1-23.
    This paper investigates the value of trust and the proper attitude lay people ought to have towards scientific experts. Trust in expertise is usually considered to be valuable, while distrust is often analyzed in cases where it is harmful. I will draw on accounts from political philosophy and argue that it is not only public trust that is valuable when it comes to scientific expertise – but also public vigilance. Expertise may be distorted in different ways, which cannot be remedied (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • How can we assess whether to trust collectives of scientists?Elinor Clark - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
    A great many important decisions we make in life depend on scientific information that we are not in a position to assess. So it seems we must defer to experts. By now there are a variety of criteria on offer by which non-experts can judge the trustworthiness of a scientist responsible for producing or promulgating this information. But science is, for the most part, a collective not an individual enterprise. This paper explores which of the criteria for judging the trustworthiness (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • An overview on trust and trustworthiness: individual and institutional dimensions.Elisabetta Lalumera - 2024 - Philosophical Psychology 37 (1):1-17.
    Philosophical Psychology is dedicating this issue on trust and trustworthiness to Katherine Hawley (1971–2021) for two reasons. First, she was an expert in the area. Hawley was one of the most rele...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Scientific Testimony. Its roles in science and society.Mikkel Gerken - 2022 - Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    Scientific Testimony concerns the roles of scientific testimony in science and society. The book develops a positive alternative to a tradition famously expressed by the slogan of the Royal Society Nullius in verba ("Take nobody's word for it"). This book argues that intra-scientific testimony—i.e., testimony between collaborating scientists—is not in conflict with the spirit of science or an add-on to scientific practice. On the contrary, intra-scientific testimony is a vital part of science. This is illustrated by articulating epistemic norms of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Post-Enquiry and Disagreement. A Socio-Epistemological Model of the Normative Significance of Disagreement Between Scientists and Denialists.Filippo Ferrari & Sebastiano Moruzzi - 2023 - Social Epistemology 37 (2):177-196.
    In this paper we investigate whether and to what extent scientists (e.g. inquirers such as epidemiologists or virologists) can have rational and fruitful disagreement with what we call post-enquirers (e.g. conspiratorial anti-vaxxers) on topics of scientific relevance such as the safety and efficacy of vaccines. In order to accomplish this aim, we will rely and expand on the epistemological framework developed in detail in Ferrari & Moruzzi (2021) to study the underlying normative profile of enquiry and post-enquiry. We take it (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Public Trust in Technology – A Moral Obligation?Bjørn K. Myskja - 2024 - SATS 25 (1):11-28.
    Biotechnology proponents claim that the public has a duty to trust biotechnology due to its potential for handling significant future food security challenges. This article uses Kant’s moral and political philosophy as basis for constructing a framework for analyzing trust as a moral duty, both in personal relationships and in institutional settings. This includes trust in technology that is of societal significance. A discussion of key concepts of trust leads to an argument that there is a conditional duty of reflexive (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Differences in Support for Retractions Based on Information Hazards Among Undergraduates and Federally Funded Scientists.Donald F. Sacco, August J. Namuth, Alicia L. Macchione & Mitch Brown - 2024 - Journal of Academic Ethics 22 (3):505-520.
    Retractions have traditionally been reserved for correcting the scientific record and discouraging research misconduct. Nonetheless, the potential for actual societal harm resulting from accurately reported published scientific findings, so-called information hazards, has been the subject of several recent article retractions. As these instances increase, the extent of support for such decisions among the scientific community and lay public remains unclear. Undergraduates (Study 1) and federally funded researchers (Study 2) reported their support for retraction decisions described as due to misconduct, honest (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • How the EU AI Act Seeks to Establish an Epistemic Environment of Trust.Calvin Wai-Loon Ho & Karel Caals - 2024 - Asian Bioethics Review 16 (3):345-372.
    With focus on the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in the digital health context, we consider the following questions: How does the European Union (EU) seek to facilitate the development and uptake of trustworthy AI systems through the AI Act? What does trustworthiness and trust mean in the AI Act, and how are they linked to some of the ongoing discussions of these terms in bioethics, law, and philosophy? What are the normative components of trustworthiness? And how (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark