Science

Is it the responsibility of the layperson to align his/her opinion with a scientific consensus (if there is one)? For example, if there is a scientific consensus contending that global warming exists, is it the responsibility of the layperson to assent to that contention? Is it irrational or unjustified for the layperson to dissent in such a situation?

Comments

This is an interesting question, combining issues in the epistemology of testimony and expertise with questions about philosophy of science. The reasons to agree with the consensus may include: deference to experts, accounts of the rationality of scientific consensus. The reasons to disagree with the consensus may include: knowledge of non-rational social epistemic processes (such as groupthink) and knowledge of the impact of ideology/politics on science. For many topics, it is unreasonable for the layperson to suppose that they can do better than scientists, although they might express uncertainty about the consensus (scientific consensus has often been wrong). For laypeople, the question of whether or not to dissent from scientists usually comes up for politically charged topics and especially those with practical applications (e.g. research on gender differences, research in evolutionary biology, research on global warming). For those topics, it is not irrational or unjustified for the layperson to dissent, provided that the dissent comes together with reasons for doubting the scientific consensus for this particular topic.

Read another response by Miriam Solomon

Read another response about Science