Chapter 2. Rational decisions in a disagreement with experts
-
István Danka
Abstract
In a ‘post-truth’ society, expert opinion in public decisions is often taken to be of minor impact. This paper considers recent developments in collective epistemology about group decisions, arguing that a general assumption of recent trends to be called as the Summative View makes them insufficient for responding to this problem properly. At least two important aspects are missing from the accounts discussed: a diversity of relevant expertise, and the fact that disagreement implies debating, the latter making a dialectical account applicable to the situation. I shall build mainly on the latter line, discussing different notions of rational movements in a debate that can occasionally make prima facie irrational decisions to be rational.
Abstract
In a ‘post-truth’ society, expert opinion in public decisions is often taken to be of minor impact. This paper considers recent developments in collective epistemology about group decisions, arguing that a general assumption of recent trends to be called as the Summative View makes them insufficient for responding to this problem properly. At least two important aspects are missing from the accounts discussed: a diversity of relevant expertise, and the fact that disagreement implies debating, the latter making a dialectical account applicable to the situation. I shall build mainly on the latter line, discussing different notions of rational movements in a debate that can occasionally make prima facie irrational decisions to be rational.
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- About the contributors vii
- Foreword 1
- Introduction 7
- Chapter 1. The dam project: Who are the experts? 17
- Chapter 2. Rational decisions in a disagreement with experts 35
- Chapter 3. Rethinking the notion of public 53
- Chapter 4. The expert you are (not) 71
- Chapter 5. Decisions without scientists? 87
- Chapter 6. Save the planet, win the election 109
- Chapter 7. Science and the source of legitimacy in democratic regimes 127
- Chapter 8. The ethics of communication and the Terra Terra project 145
- Chapter 9. The political use of science 165
- Chapter 10. The dialectical legacy of epigenetics 185
- Index 197
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- About the contributors vii
- Foreword 1
- Introduction 7
- Chapter 1. The dam project: Who are the experts? 17
- Chapter 2. Rational decisions in a disagreement with experts 35
- Chapter 3. Rethinking the notion of public 53
- Chapter 4. The expert you are (not) 71
- Chapter 5. Decisions without scientists? 87
- Chapter 6. Save the planet, win the election 109
- Chapter 7. Science and the source of legitimacy in democratic regimes 127
- Chapter 8. The ethics of communication and the Terra Terra project 145
- Chapter 9. The political use of science 165
- Chapter 10. The dialectical legacy of epigenetics 185
- Index 197
