Scratching where it doesn’t itch: science denialism, expertise, and the probative value of scientific consensus
Resumen
Resumen: En los últimos años, se han propuesto diversas estrategias para contrarrestar el negacionismo científico, entre las cuales una de las más influyentes es la de Elizabeth Anderson, que sostiene que cualquier persona lega con acceso a Internet y educación básica puede evaluar confiablemente la aceptabilidad de distintas afirmaciones que involucran el conocimiento de personas expertas. En concreto, la autora muestra que este procedimiento puede aplicarse con éxito al caso del calentamiento global antropogénico. En este artículo intentaremos demostrar por qué, aunque la propuesta de Anderson es satisfactoria ese caso concreto, fracasa cuando se aplica al terraplanismo y el movimiento antivacunas.
Abstract: In recent years, several strategies have been proposed to tackle social controversies about topics in which science is settled, among which one of the most influential is that of Elizabeth Anderson, who argues that any lay person with access to the Internet and basic education can reliably assess the acceptability of various claims involving expert knowledge. In particular, the author shows that this procedure can be successfully applied to the case of anthropogenic global warming. In this article we will try to argue why, even if we concede that Anderson’s proposal is satisfactory in that particular case, it fails to generalize when applied to other controversies. In this article, we illustrate it with the cases of flat-Eartherism and anti-vaxxerism.
Descargas
-
Resumen0
-
PDF0
-
HTML0
Citas
Almassi. (2012). Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness. Ethics and the Environment, 17(2), 29. https://doi.org/10.2979/ethicsenviro.17.2.29
Anderson, E. (2011). Democracy, Public Policy, and Lay Assessments of Scientific Tes-timony. Episteme, 8(2), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.3366/epi.2011.0013
Björnberg, K. E., Karlsson, M., Gilek, M., & Hansson, S. O. (2017). Climate and environ- mental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015. Jour- nal of Cleaner Production, 167, 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.066
Cook, J. (2019). Understanding and countering misinformation about climate change.
Cowie, S. (2019, November 6). Brazil’s flat Earthers to get their day in the sun. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/06/brazil-flat-earth-conference-terra-plana
Czarnek, G., & Kossowska, M. (2023). Strong correlational but no causal evidence on the link between the perception of scientific consensus and support for COVID-19 vaccination [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yufmp
de Oliveira, I. S., Cardoso, L. S., Ferreira, I. G., Alexandre-Silva, G. M., Jacob, B. de C. da S., Cerni, F. A., Monteiro, W. M., Zottich, U., & Pucca, M. B. (2022). Anti-vaccination movements in the world and in Brazil. Revista Da Sociedade Bra-sileira de Medicina Tropical, 55, e0592-2021. https://doi.org/10.1590/0037-8682-0592-2021
Ding, D., Maibach, E. W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2011). Sup-port for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scien-tific agreement. Nature Climate Change, 1(9), 462–466. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1295
Dubé, E., Gagnon, D., MacDonald, N. E., & SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesi-tancy. (2015). Strategies intended to address vaccine hesitancy: Review of pub-lished reviews. Vaccine, 33(34), 4191–4203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.041
Edelsztein, V., & Cormick, C. (forthcoming). Análisis del movimiento antivacunas en Twit- ter: Una perspectiva latinoamericana. JCOM-América Latina.
Evrony, A., & Caplan, A. (2017). The overlooked dangers of anti-vaccination groups’ social media presence. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 13(6), 1475–1476. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2017.1283467
Friedman, J. (2017). The Problem of Epistocratic Identification and the (Possibly) Dys-functional Division of Epistemic Labor. Critical Review, 29(3), 293–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2017.1410979
Gardel, L. (2020, September 23). ¿Quiénes son los Médicos por la Verdad y los Epide-miólogos Argentinos? Chequeado. https://chequeado.com/el-explicador/quienes-son-los-medicos-por-la-verdad-y-los-epidemiologos-argentinos-los-2-grupos-que-difunden-desinformaciones-sobre-el-coronavirus/
Global Warming Petition Project. (2007). http://www.petitionproject.org
Goldenberg, M. J. (2021). Vaccine Hesitancy: Public Trust, Expertise, And The War On Science (1st Edition). University Of Pittsburgh Press. http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=6DB5FD18AA542B58933A63041C4FF1C5
Goldman, A. I. (2001). Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1), 85–110. https://doi.org/10.2307/3071090
Gross, L. (2009). A Broken Trust: Lessons from the Vaccine–Autism Wars. PLOS Biology, 7(5), e1000114. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000114
Haerlin, B., & Parr, D. (1999). How to restore public trust in science. Nature, 400(6744), 499–499. https://doi.org/10.1038/22867
Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2015). Measuring Laypeople’s Trust in Experts in a Digital Age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLOS ONE, 10(10), e0139309. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139309
Hobson-West, P. (2007). ‘Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all’: Organised resis- tance to childhood vaccination in the UK. Sociology of Health & Illness, 29(2), 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.00544.x
Ingold, J. (2018, November 20). We went to a flat-Earth convention and found a lesson about the future of post- truth life. 18.
Inhofe, J. (2003). Sen. Inhofe Delivers Major Speech on the Science of Climate Change “Catastrophic global warming alarmism not based on objective science.” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2003/7/post-037e5dea-9c4e-4b92-a416-4a6bf6cfd7ef
Kata, A. (2012). Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm – An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine, 30(25), 3778–3789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112
Kerr, J. & Sander van der Linden. (2021). Communicating expert consensus increases personal support for COVID‐19 mitigation policies. J Appl Soc Psychol, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12827
Levy, N. (2021). Bad Beliefs: Why They Happen to Good People (1st ed.). Oxford Uni-versity Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192895325.001.0001
Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., & Lloyd, E. (2018). The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: Simulating coherence by conspiracism. Synthese, 195(1), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6
Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Vaughan, S. (2013). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), Ar-ticle 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1720
Longino, H. (2019). The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/
Maldita.es. (2021). The International Scheme of “Doctors for the Truth”: A Denialist Trademark Registered by Natalia Prego. Chequeado. https://chequeado.com/investigaciones/the-international-scheme-of-doctors-for-the-truth-a-denialist-trademark-registered-by-natalia-prego/
Mallapaty, S. (2021). Researchers fear growing COVID vaccine hesitancy in developing nations. Nature, 601(7892), 174–175. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03830-7
McIntyre, L. (2021). How to talk to a science denier: Conversations with flat earthers, climate deniers, and others who defy reason. MIT Press.
Micheletto, K. (2021, May 31). Quiénes son y qué hay detrás de los grupos negacionis-tas de la cuarentena | “Médicos por la verdad” que siempre es de derecha. PAGINA12. https://www.pagina12.com.ar/344966-quienes-son-y-que-hay-detras-de-los-grupos-negacionistas-de-
Olshansky, A. (2018). Conspiracy Theorizing and Religious Motivated Reasoning: Why the Earth ‘Must’ Be Flat.
Olshansky, A., Peaslee, R. M., & Landrum, A. R. (2020). Flat-Smacked! Converting to Flat Eartherism. Journal of Media and Religion, 19(2), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348423.2020.1774257
Omer, S. B. (2020). The discredited doctor hailed by the anti-vaccine movement. Na-ture, 586(7831), 668–669. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02989-9
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2011). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scien-tists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change (Re-print edition). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Rao, T. S. S., & Andrade, C. (2011). The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, refuta- tion, retraction, and fraud. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 53(2), 95–96. https://doi. org/10.4103/0019-5545.82529
Roach, A., & Clifton, K. (2020, September 19). Covid skeptics and anti-vaxxers clash with police at London protest. Evening Standard. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ trafalgar-square-protest-london-coronavirus-a4551266.html
Sargent, M. (Director). (2015, February 12). FLAT EARTH Clues Part 1—Empty Theatre— Mark Sargent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFYaT-U82JY
Strozewski, Z. (2021, October 26). 10 percent of Americans don’t believe in climate change, 15 percent unsure: Poll. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/10-percent-americans- dont-believe-climate-change-15-percent-unsure-poll-1642747
The Royal Society, & The British Academy. (2020). COVID-19 vaccine deployment: Behav- iour, ethics, misinformation and policy strategies.
To 11 million Brazilians, the Earth is flat. (2020, February 28). France 24. https://www. france24.com/en/20200228-to-11-million-brazilians-the-earth-is-flat
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W. (2015). The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence. PLOS ONE, 10(2), e0118489. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489
Wolfe, R. M., & Sharp, L. K. (2002). Anti-vaccinationists past and present. BMJ : British Medical Journal, 325(7361), 430–432.
Derechos de autor 2025 Daimon Revista Internacional de Filosofia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 3.0.
Las obras que se publican en esta revista están sujetas a los siguientes términos:
1. El Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia (la editorial) conserva los derechos patrimoniales (copyright) de las obras publicadas, y favorece y permite la reutilización de las mismas bajo la licencia de uso indicada en el punto 2.
2. Las obras se publican en la edición electrónica de la revista bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 3.0 España (texto legal). Se pueden copiar, usar, difundir, transmitir y exponer públicamente, siempre que: i) se cite la autoría y la fuente original de su publicación (revista, editorial y URL de la obra); ii) no se usen para fines comerciales; iii) si remezcla, transforma o crea a partir del material, no podrá distribuir el material modificado.
3. Condiciones de auto-archivo. Se permite y se anima a los autores a difundir electrónicamente las versiones pre-print (versión antes de ser evaluada) y/o post-print (versión evaluada y aceptada para su publicación) de sus obras antes de su publicación, ya que favorece su circulación y difusión más temprana y con ello un posible aumento en su citación y alcance entre la comunidad académica. Color RoMEO: verde.
