Should We Aim for Consensus?. Beatty, J. & Moore, A. Episteme, 7(3):198–214, October, 2010. Publisher: Cambridge University Press![Should We Aim for Consensus? [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex There can be good reasons to doubt the authority of a group of scientists. But those reasons do not include lack of unanimity among them. Indeed, holding science to a unanimity or near-unanimity standard has a pernicious effect on scientific deliberation, and on the transparency that is so crucial to the authority of science in a democracy. What authorizes a conclusion is the quality of the deliberation that produced it, which is enhanced by the presence of a non-dismissible minority. Scientists can speak as one in more ways than one. We recommend a different sort of consensus that is partly substantive and partly procedural. It is a version of what Margaret Gilbert calls “joint acceptance”–we call it “deliberative acceptance.” It capitalizes on there being a persistent minority, and thereby encourages accurate reporting of the state of agreement and disagreement among deliberators.
@article{beatty_should_2010,
title = {Should {We} {Aim} for {Consensus}?},
volume = {7},
issn = {1750-0117, 1742-3600},
url = {http://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/should-we-aim-for-consensus/44AE422B8618E9094FFA96E9B957E83A},
doi = {10.3366/E1742360010000948},
abstract = {There can be good reasons to doubt the authority of a group of scientists. But those reasons do not include lack of unanimity among them. Indeed, holding science to a unanimity or near-unanimity standard has a pernicious effect on scientific deliberation, and on the transparency that is so crucial to the authority of science in a democracy. What authorizes a conclusion is the quality of the deliberation that produced it, which is enhanced by the presence of a non-dismissible minority. Scientists can speak as one in more ways than one. We recommend a different sort of consensus that is partly substantive and partly procedural. It is a version of what Margaret Gilbert calls “joint acceptance”–we call it “deliberative acceptance.” It capitalizes on there being a persistent minority, and thereby encourages accurate reporting of the state of agreement and disagreement among deliberators.},
language = {en},
number = {3},
urldate = {2021-04-14},
journal = {Episteme},
author = {Beatty, John and Moore, Alfred},
month = oct,
year = {2010},
note = {Publisher: Cambridge University Press},
keywords = {Ignorance in history and philosophy of science and technology - general information, PRINTED (Fonds papier)},
pages = {198--214},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"4tt75HDCgabtbvdoH","bibbaseid":"beatty-moore-shouldweaimforconsensus-2010","author_short":["Beatty, J.","Moore, A."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Should We Aim for Consensus?","volume":"7","issn":"1750-0117, 1742-3600","url":"http://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/should-we-aim-for-consensus/44AE422B8618E9094FFA96E9B957E83A","doi":"10.3366/E1742360010000948","abstract":"There can be good reasons to doubt the authority of a group of scientists. But those reasons do not include lack of unanimity among them. Indeed, holding science to a unanimity or near-unanimity standard has a pernicious effect on scientific deliberation, and on the transparency that is so crucial to the authority of science in a democracy. What authorizes a conclusion is the quality of the deliberation that produced it, which is enhanced by the presence of a non-dismissible minority. Scientists can speak as one in more ways than one. We recommend a different sort of consensus that is partly substantive and partly procedural. It is a version of what Margaret Gilbert calls “joint acceptance”–we call it “deliberative acceptance.” It capitalizes on there being a persistent minority, and thereby encourages accurate reporting of the state of agreement and disagreement among deliberators.","language":"en","number":"3","urldate":"2021-04-14","journal":"Episteme","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Beatty"],"firstnames":["John"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Moore"],"firstnames":["Alfred"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"October","year":"2010","note":"Publisher: Cambridge University Press","keywords":"Ignorance in history and philosophy of science and technology - general information, PRINTED (Fonds papier)","pages":"198–214","bibtex":"@article{beatty_should_2010,\n\ttitle = {Should {We} {Aim} for {Consensus}?},\n\tvolume = {7},\n\tissn = {1750-0117, 1742-3600},\n\turl = {http://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/should-we-aim-for-consensus/44AE422B8618E9094FFA96E9B957E83A},\n\tdoi = {10.3366/E1742360010000948},\n\tabstract = {There can be good reasons to doubt the authority of a group of scientists. But those reasons do not include lack of unanimity among them. Indeed, holding science to a unanimity or near-unanimity standard has a pernicious effect on scientific deliberation, and on the transparency that is so crucial to the authority of science in a democracy. What authorizes a conclusion is the quality of the deliberation that produced it, which is enhanced by the presence of a non-dismissible minority. Scientists can speak as one in more ways than one. We recommend a different sort of consensus that is partly substantive and partly procedural. It is a version of what Margaret Gilbert calls “joint acceptance”–we call it “deliberative acceptance.” It capitalizes on there being a persistent minority, and thereby encourages accurate reporting of the state of agreement and disagreement among deliberators.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\turldate = {2021-04-14},\n\tjournal = {Episteme},\n\tauthor = {Beatty, John and Moore, Alfred},\n\tmonth = oct,\n\tyear = {2010},\n\tnote = {Publisher: Cambridge University Press},\n\tkeywords = {Ignorance in history and philosophy of science and technology - general information, PRINTED (Fonds papier)},\n\tpages = {198--214},\n}\n\n\n\n","author_short":["Beatty, J.","Moore, A."],"key":"beatty_should_2010","id":"beatty_should_2010","bibbaseid":"beatty-moore-shouldweaimforconsensus-2010","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/should-we-aim-for-consensus/44AE422B8618E9094FFA96E9B957E83A"},"keyword":["Ignorance in history and philosophy of science and technology - general information","PRINTED (Fonds papier)"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://bibbase.org/zotero-group/science_et_ignorance/1340424","dataSources":["zX4acseCDM6D58AW7","NTvuMntpta5z9CAbT"],"keywords":["ignorance in history and philosophy of science and technology - general information","printed (fonds papier)"],"search_terms":["aim","consensus","beatty","moore"],"title":"Should We Aim for Consensus?","year":2010}