Denying the Existence of Consensus or Denying its Probative Value? A Critique of McIntyre’s Proposal Concerning Science Denial

Autores
Cormick, Claudio Javier; Edelsztein, Valeria Carolina
Año de publicación
2024
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
In this article, we try to argue, against McIntyre’s proposal in How to talk to a science denier, that there is a relevant difference between various forms of science denialism. Specifically, we contend that there is a significant distinction to be made between those forms of denialism which deny the existence of an expert consensus (the model of which is the strategy of the tobacco companies in the 1950s) and those which deny the probatory value of such expert consensus (on the basis, e.g., of conspiracy theories involving scientists). While McIntyre and others advocate for the value of communicating consensus as an effective and perfectly rational strategy against those forms of denialism which deceivingly deny the existence of scientific agreement, we argue that this approach becomes question-begging against those which deny its probatory value. Accordingly, then, we object to McIntyre’s characterization that “all science denial is basically the same” and suggest a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon.
Fil: Cormick, Claudio Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas. - Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Filosófico. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas; Argentina
Fil: Edelsztein, Valeria Carolina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Centro de Formación e Investigación en Enseñanza de las Ciencias; Argentina
Materia
SCIENCE DENIAL
TOBACCO STRATEGY
AGW DENIAL
FLAT-EARTHERISM
ANTI-VAXXERISM
MCINTYRE, LEE
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/260785

id CONICETDig_3add942c1ac838898e8ac97c736e8697
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/260785
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Denying the Existence of Consensus or Denying its Probative Value? A Critique of McIntyre’s Proposal Concerning Science DenialCormick, Claudio JavierEdelsztein, Valeria CarolinaSCIENCE DENIALTOBACCO STRATEGYAGW DENIALFLAT-EARTHERISMANTI-VAXXERISMMCINTYRE, LEEhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/6.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6In this article, we try to argue, against McIntyre’s proposal in How to talk to a science denier, that there is a relevant difference between various forms of science denialism. Specifically, we contend that there is a significant distinction to be made between those forms of denialism which deny the existence of an expert consensus (the model of which is the strategy of the tobacco companies in the 1950s) and those which deny the probatory value of such expert consensus (on the basis, e.g., of conspiracy theories involving scientists). While McIntyre and others advocate for the value of communicating consensus as an effective and perfectly rational strategy against those forms of denialism which deceivingly deny the existence of scientific agreement, we argue that this approach becomes question-begging against those which deny its probatory value. Accordingly, then, we object to McIntyre’s characterization that “all science denial is basically the same” and suggest a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon.Fil: Cormick, Claudio Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas. - Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Filosófico. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas; ArgentinaFil: Edelsztein, Valeria Carolina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Centro de Formación e Investigación en Enseñanza de las Ciencias; ArgentinaUniversidade Federal de Santa Catarina2024-08info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/260785Cormick, Claudio Javier; Edelsztein, Valeria Carolina; Denying the Existence of Consensus or Denying its Probative Value? A Critique of McIntyre’s Proposal Concerning Science Denial; Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina; Principia; 28; 2; 8-2024; 321-3511808-1711CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/93904info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.5007/1808-1711.2024.e93904info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T09:51:41Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/260785instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 09:51:41.327CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Denying the Existence of Consensus or Denying its Probative Value? A Critique of McIntyre’s Proposal Concerning Science Denial
title Denying the Existence of Consensus or Denying its Probative Value? A Critique of McIntyre’s Proposal Concerning Science Denial
spellingShingle Denying the Existence of Consensus or Denying its Probative Value? A Critique of McIntyre’s Proposal Concerning Science Denial
Cormick, Claudio Javier
SCIENCE DENIAL
TOBACCO STRATEGY
AGW DENIAL
FLAT-EARTHERISM
ANTI-VAXXERISM
MCINTYRE, LEE
title_short Denying the Existence of Consensus or Denying its Probative Value? A Critique of McIntyre’s Proposal Concerning Science Denial
title_full Denying the Existence of Consensus or Denying its Probative Value? A Critique of McIntyre’s Proposal Concerning Science Denial
title_fullStr Denying the Existence of Consensus or Denying its Probative Value? A Critique of McIntyre’s Proposal Concerning Science Denial
title_full_unstemmed Denying the Existence of Consensus or Denying its Probative Value? A Critique of McIntyre’s Proposal Concerning Science Denial
title_sort Denying the Existence of Consensus or Denying its Probative Value? A Critique of McIntyre’s Proposal Concerning Science Denial
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Cormick, Claudio Javier
Edelsztein, Valeria Carolina
author Cormick, Claudio Javier
author_facet Cormick, Claudio Javier
Edelsztein, Valeria Carolina
author_role author
author2 Edelsztein, Valeria Carolina
author2_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv SCIENCE DENIAL
TOBACCO STRATEGY
AGW DENIAL
FLAT-EARTHERISM
ANTI-VAXXERISM
MCINTYRE, LEE
topic SCIENCE DENIAL
TOBACCO STRATEGY
AGW DENIAL
FLAT-EARTHERISM
ANTI-VAXXERISM
MCINTYRE, LEE
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6.3
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv In this article, we try to argue, against McIntyre’s proposal in How to talk to a science denier, that there is a relevant difference between various forms of science denialism. Specifically, we contend that there is a significant distinction to be made between those forms of denialism which deny the existence of an expert consensus (the model of which is the strategy of the tobacco companies in the 1950s) and those which deny the probatory value of such expert consensus (on the basis, e.g., of conspiracy theories involving scientists). While McIntyre and others advocate for the value of communicating consensus as an effective and perfectly rational strategy against those forms of denialism which deceivingly deny the existence of scientific agreement, we argue that this approach becomes question-begging against those which deny its probatory value. Accordingly, then, we object to McIntyre’s characterization that “all science denial is basically the same” and suggest a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon.
Fil: Cormick, Claudio Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas. - Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Filosófico. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas; Argentina
Fil: Edelsztein, Valeria Carolina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Centro de Formación e Investigación en Enseñanza de las Ciencias; Argentina
description In this article, we try to argue, against McIntyre’s proposal in How to talk to a science denier, that there is a relevant difference between various forms of science denialism. Specifically, we contend that there is a significant distinction to be made between those forms of denialism which deny the existence of an expert consensus (the model of which is the strategy of the tobacco companies in the 1950s) and those which deny the probatory value of such expert consensus (on the basis, e.g., of conspiracy theories involving scientists). While McIntyre and others advocate for the value of communicating consensus as an effective and perfectly rational strategy against those forms of denialism which deceivingly deny the existence of scientific agreement, we argue that this approach becomes question-begging against those which deny its probatory value. Accordingly, then, we object to McIntyre’s characterization that “all science denial is basically the same” and suggest a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon.
publishDate 2024
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2024-08
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/260785
Cormick, Claudio Javier; Edelsztein, Valeria Carolina; Denying the Existence of Consensus or Denying its Probative Value? A Critique of McIntyre’s Proposal Concerning Science Denial; Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina; Principia; 28; 2; 8-2024; 321-351
1808-1711
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/260785
identifier_str_mv Cormick, Claudio Javier; Edelsztein, Valeria Carolina; Denying the Existence of Consensus or Denying its Probative Value? A Critique of McIntyre’s Proposal Concerning Science Denial; Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina; Principia; 28; 2; 8-2024; 321-351
1808-1711
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/93904
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.5007/1808-1711.2024.e93904
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844613587721519104
score 13.070432