Scientific disagreements, fast science and higher-order evidence

  • 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.

Download full text files

Export metadata

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar
Metadaten
Author:Daniel C. FriedmanGND, Dunja ŠešeljaORCiDGND
URN:urn:nbn:de:hbz:294-121976
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.83
Parent Title (English):Philosophy of science
Publisher:Cambridge University Press
Place of publication:Cambridge
Document Type:Article
Language:English
Date of Publication (online):2024/12/04
Date of first Publication:2023/05/29
Publishing Institution:Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universitätsbibliothek
Volume:90
Issue:4
First Page:937
Last Page:957
Institutes/Facilities:Institut für Philosophie II
faculties:Fakultät für Philosophie und Erziehungswissenschaft
Licence (English):License LogoCreative Commons - CC BY 4.0 - Attribution 4.0 International

OPUS4 Logo