Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Scientific Justification as the Basis of Scientific Testimony
View through CrossRef
Abstract
Chapter 3 provides a characterization of scientific testimony that differentiates it from other types of testimony. According to this characterization, scientific testimony is testimony that is properly based on scientific justification. Further specification of this characterization is provided by way of a discussion of some of the central properties of scientific justification. These include its being gradable, its being discursive, and the senses in which it is and is not epistemically superior to non-scientific justification. Likewise, the chapter contains a discussion of what being properly based on scientific justification amounts to. Apart from helping to clarify the nature of scientific testimony, these arguments help to specify why intra-scientific testimony contributes to the epistemic force of collaborative science. Likewise, they help to specify why public scientific testimony may serve as a central epistemic authority in society.
Title: Scientific Justification as the Basis of Scientific Testimony
Description:
Abstract
Chapter 3 provides a characterization of scientific testimony that differentiates it from other types of testimony.
According to this characterization, scientific testimony is testimony that is properly based on scientific justification.
Further specification of this characterization is provided by way of a discussion of some of the central properties of scientific justification.
These include its being gradable, its being discursive, and the senses in which it is and is not epistemically superior to non-scientific justification.
Likewise, the chapter contains a discussion of what being properly based on scientific justification amounts to.
Apart from helping to clarify the nature of scientific testimony, these arguments help to specify why intra-scientific testimony contributes to the epistemic force of collaborative science.
Likewise, they help to specify why public scientific testimony may serve as a central epistemic authority in society.
Related Results
Scientific Testimony
Scientific Testimony
Abstract
Scientific Testimony concerns the roles of scientific testimony in science and society. The book develops a positive alternative to a tradition famously exp...
Public Scientific Testimony I
Public Scientific Testimony I
Abstract
Chapter 5 concerns scientific expert testimony—i.e., testimony from scientific experts to laypersons. It surveys empirical research on social and psychologi...
Testimony and the Scientific Enterprise
Testimony and the Scientific Enterprise
Abstract
Chapter 1 opens with some conceptual clarifications and a provisional taxonomy of types of scientific testimony. Notably, this includes the distinction betw...
Intra-Scientific Testimony
Intra-Scientific Testimony
Abstract
Chapter 4 continues the overarching argument that intra-scientific testimony is a vital part of scientific practice by articulating some norms for it. The f...
The Significance of Scentific Testimony
The Significance of Scentific Testimony
Abstract
Chapter 7 begins with arguments for two theses concerning intra-scientific testimony. The first thesis, Methodology, is the claim that the distinctive norms...
Jury Comprehension of Expert Evidence
Jury Comprehension of Expert Evidence
AbstractThe effectiveness of expert testimony in litigation is limited by a factor independent of the strength of opinion testimony—the level of comprehension of the jurors. If the...
Is a System Motive Really Necessary to Explain the System Justification Effect? A Response to Jost (2019) and Jost, Badaan, Goudarzi, Hoffarth, and Mogami (2019)
Is a System Motive Really Necessary to Explain the System Justification Effect? A Response to Jost (2019) and Jost, Badaan, Goudarzi, Hoffarth, and Mogami (2019)
The debate between the proponents of SIMSA and SJT does not pivot on whether system justification occurs – we all agree that system justification does occur. The issue is why it oc...
A logic of defeasible argumentation: Constructing arguments in justification logic
A logic of defeasible argumentation: Constructing arguments in justification logic
In the 1980s, Pollock’s work on default reasons started the quest in the AI community for a formal system of defeasible argumentation. The main goal of this paper is to provide a l...

