Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Global Warming and the Interaction Between the Public and Technical Spheres of Argument: When Standards for Expertise Really Matter

Global Warming and the Interaction Between the Public and Technical Spheres of Argument: When... This article considers public usurpation of the technical sphere a problematic implication of Goodnight (1982). I argue that in order to protect the roles of the public and technical sphere from duplicitous contestation, interlocutors in the public sphere should apply unique standards to evaluate the authenticity and worth of technical claims advanced in the public sphere. I suggest that the public use three standards to evaluate technical claims under scrutiny. In order for technical claims to be legitimized for public use, the following conditions should be met: (1) Scientific communities should be in consensus. Consensus should guide policy. (2) Scientific communities should not produce research contaminated with motives other than doing the best science. (3) Scientific communities should not be corrupt in conduct. There should not be credible allegations of misconduct against the dominant scientific approach. If the technical claims under scrutiny meet these three standards, then the claims should have presumption in the public sphere and public advocates should consider their use for policymaking. Global warming is a unique example where the claims of the international scientific community have met all three standards, yet skeptics in the public sphere still have argumentative presumption in the debate. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Argumentation and Advocacy Taylor & Francis

Global Warming and the Interaction Between the Public and Technical Spheres of Argument: When Standards for Expertise Really Matter

Paliewicz, Nicholas S.
Argumentation and Advocacy , Volume 48 (4): 12 – Mar 1, 2012
Download PDF

Global Warming and the Interaction Between the Public and Technical Spheres of Argument: When Standards for Expertise Really Matter

Abstract

This article considers public usurpation of the technical sphere a problematic implication of Goodnight (1982). I argue that in order to protect the roles of the public and technical sphere from duplicitous contestation, interlocutors in the public sphere should apply unique standards to evaluate the authenticity and worth of technical claims advanced in the public sphere. I suggest that the public use three standards to evaluate technical claims under scrutiny. In order for technical claims...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/global-warming-and-the-interaction-between-the-public-and-technical-430h7nwDfG
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2012 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
2576-8476
eISSN
1051-1431
DOI
10.1080/00028533.2012.11821774
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This article considers public usurpation of the technical sphere a problematic implication of Goodnight (1982). I argue that in order to protect the roles of the public and technical sphere from duplicitous contestation, interlocutors in the public sphere should apply unique standards to evaluate the authenticity and worth of technical claims advanced in the public sphere. I suggest that the public use three standards to evaluate technical claims under scrutiny. In order for technical claims to be legitimized for public use, the following conditions should be met: (1) Scientific communities should be in consensus. Consensus should guide policy. (2) Scientific communities should not produce research contaminated with motives other than doing the best science. (3) Scientific communities should not be corrupt in conduct. There should not be credible allegations of misconduct against the dominant scientific approach. If the technical claims under scrutiny meet these three standards, then the claims should have presumption in the public sphere and public advocates should consider their use for policymaking. Global warming is a unique example where the claims of the international scientific community have met all three standards, yet skeptics in the public sphere still have argumentative presumption in the debate.

Journal

Argumentation and Advocacy – Taylor & Francis

Published: Mar 1, 2012

Keywords: G. Thomas Goodnight; global warming; argument standards; public sphere; technical sphere

References

  • Expert credibility in climate change
  • Climate of skepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change
  • Is a democracy possible? The decline of the public in the American debate
  • Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts, policymakers, and citizens in environmental governance
  • When poststructural theory and contemporary politics collide-The vexed case of global warming
  • Corporate hijacking of the greenhouse debate
  • Negating “climategate.”
  • Lost in translation? United States television news coverage of anthropogenic climate change, 1995–2004
  • Research article: Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  • There is a problem with global warming….it stopped in 1998
  • Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate
  • Climate expertise: Between scientific credibility and geopolitical imperatives
  • Climatic change: Scientific dynamics, expert evaluation, and geopolitical stakes
  • The decline of the public sphere of deliberative argument: Trials as public argument and their subjugation to the expediency of the private plea bargaining process
  • Climategate: The final nail in the coffin of ‘anthropogenic global warming’? [Web log post]
  • Climate change, the politicization of science, and Michael Crichton's state of fear
  • Examining the scientific consensus on climate change
  • Fighting climate “fluff.”
  • Our biotech future
  • Accidental rhetoric: The root metaphors of Three Mile Island
  • Snowed
  • British panel clears scientists
  • The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of deliberation
  • Public discourse
  • The public sphere: An encyclopedia article
  • The climate change game
  • Science, politics, and the renegotiation of expertise at the EPA
  • When is it appropriate to combine expert judgments?
  • Refereed papers: A materials scientist ponders global warming/cooling
  • Reconsideration of climate change from the viewpoints of greenhouse gas types and time scale
  • Technocracy, democracy, and U.S. climate politics: The need for demarcations
  • Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system
  • Resisting climate hysteria
  • Climate of denial
  • Whose shoe fits best? Dubious physics and power politics in the TMD footprint controversy
  • The evolution of policy responses to stratospheric ozone depletion
  • Beyond the ivory tower: The scientific consensus on climate change
  • Interview by J. Mann, [CNN transcript]
  • Overshoot, adapt, and recover
  • Economists and ecologists: Modeling global climate change to different conclusions
  • Using specific language to describe risk and probability
  • Climate simulation, uncertainty, and policy advice-The case of the IPCC
  • Politics reasserts itself in the debate over climate change and its hazards
  • News analysis: In climate debate, exaggeration is a pitfall
  • On the degeneration of the public sphere
  • Climate change: A profile of US climate scientists' perspectives
  • The relationship between the public and technical spheres of argument: A case study of the Challenger Seven disaster
  • Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: Boundary-ordering devices and authority
  • How do scientific assessments learn? Part 1. Conceptual framework and case study of the IPCC
  • The changing role of nation states in international environmental assessments-the case of the IPCC
  • Learning in international organizations in global environmental governments
  • The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: A globed scale transformative initiative
  • Svensmark: “Global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning”-enjoy global warming while it lasts [Web log post]
  • Spectator politics and the revival of public argument
  • The postmodern public: Revitalizing commitment to the public forum
  • Warming of the climate system is unequivocal: Highlights of the fourth IPCC assessment report
  • Some observations on the IPCC assessment process 1988–2007