Teaching about scientific dissent from neo-darwinism

2004 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 115-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen C Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Dissent

scholarly journals Gajo Petrovic’s Praxis

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-98
Author(s):  
Bozidar Jaksic
Keyword(s):  
Management System ◽  
Theoretical Orientation ◽  
Political Leadership ◽  
Self Management ◽  
The Political ◽  
Sociological Analysis ◽  
Authoritarian Rule ◽  
European Culture ◽  
Scientific Dissent ◽  
The Difference

The author?s approach is based on three premises: 1. that Gajo Petrovic?s Praxis was an outstanding phenomenon in Croatian, Yugoslav and European culture, a challenge of freedom in a repressive society; 2. that there has never been such a thing as "Praxis group", "philosophers of practice" or "Praxis philosophers" with a unified philosophical and socio-theoretical orientation; and 3. that political and ideological attacks on Praxis were part of the repressive system that targeted every instance of cultural and scientific dissent. The political leadership of Tito?s regime, its ideological and propaganda apparatus systematically disseminated allegations, denunciations and accusations against Praxis and Gajo Petrovic. The same style has survived through radical historical changes from the appearance of Praxis until today. The attackers have often been the same persons, with the difference that in earlier times they denounced Praxis and Gajo Petrovic as enemies of "socialism" and the "socialist self-management system", and in the changed political fashion as "servants" of Tito?s authoritarian rule. The fate of Praxis in the former regime has been triumphantly interpreted as a "family quarrel". This paper attempts a sociological analysis of the political destiny of Praxis. The analysis is essentially determined not by old and new political and ideological questionings of Praxis, but by Gajo Petrovic?s fundamental belief that there is no freedom without the human or humanity without freedom. .

Dissent and Its Discontents

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inmaculada de Melo-Martín ◽  
Kristen Intemann
Keyword(s):  
Policy Making ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Social Consequences ◽  
Social Conditions ◽  
Philosophical Approach ◽  
Scientific Institutions ◽  
Scientific Dissent

This introductory chapter presents the philosophical approach used in this book to deal with the problematic epistemic and social consequences of some scientific dissent. It challenges approaches to this problem that focus on finding criteria to identify what the authors have termed normatively inappropriate dissent (NID), and it calls for a reframing of the problem that highlights some of the epistemic and social conditions actually contributing to making NID more damaging: scientific institutions and practices that undermine warranted public trust in science and a misunderstanding of the role of science in policy making. It also offers an overview of the book and specifically describes each of the chapters.

scholarly journals Scientific dissent and public policy

EMBO Reports ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inmaculada de Melo‐Martín ◽  
Kristen Intemann
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Scientific Dissent

Post-Normal Techno-Anthropology

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-265
Author(s):  
Tom Børsen ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Technological Innovation ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Second Step ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
International Panel ◽  
Scientific Dissent ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Methodological Strategy

This paper identifies, explains, and illustrates the meaning of Post-Normal Techno-Anthropology as a two-step methodological strategy for analyzing policy-relevant scientific dissent in different segments of science, techno-science, and technological innovation. The first step focuses on epistemological and ethical analyses of the dissenting parties’ positions, and identifies conflicting arguments and assumptions on different levels. The second step involves scholarly discussions on how the analyses of policy-relevant scientific dissent can inform decision-makers and science advisors’ phronetic judgments. Dissenting views on climate change of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is used as an illustrative example.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document