EXPERTS VS SOCIETY: ON THE WAY TO COOPERATION

Authors

  • Olga A. Shapiro Institute of Management, RANEPA St. Petersburg
  • Elena G. Shkorubskaya V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202461462

Keywords:

expert, science, argumentation, public communication, P. Feyerabend, T. Nichols, J. Habermas, B. Latour

Abstract

The article is devoted to the problem of the expert knowledge crisis, which consists in a decrease in public trust in scientific experts, the transformation of the role of experts in making socially significant decisions, escapism or neglect on the part of experts in relation to society. We believe that in order to resolve the existing confrontation between society and experts, it is necessary to compare the positions of both and then formulate common grounds that can serve for resolving the conflict. We assign the role of moderator in the practice of resolving this conflict to politicians, who are forced to maneuver between the advice of experts and the opinions of voters and also take responsibility for the consequences of implementing decisions. Reconstructing the position of experts, we rely primarily on the work of T. Nichols “The Death of Expertise”. We believe that it very clearly articulates the concerns of the scientific community about its current status, role, and future fate, as well as the expert community’s understanding of the reasons for the current situation. The position of society is expressed in the works of P. Feyerabend. So, as the first task of our article, we see a comparison of these positions and identification of key points of conflict contradiction. Looking for resolving the conflict contradiction, we rely on the concept of communicative action by J. Habermas and the ideas of the actor-network theory of B. Latour. It is possible to compare all four positions thanks to the analytical approach to the history of philosophy of J. Barnes. An argumentative analysis makes it possible to clearly identify both the basic points of their contradiction and the positions common to all parties, which should form the basis for the search for consensus. Such basic positions are not the assessment of expert or profane knowledge, but the desire by all parties of communication to preserve the democratic structure of society.

References

Дискуссия // Цифровой ученый: лаборатория философа. 2020. Т. 3. № 2. С. 17–58.

Латур Б. Наука в действии: следуя за учеными и инженерами внутри общества / Пер. с англ. К. Федорова. СПб.: Издательство Европейского университета в Санкт-Петербурге, 2013. 414 с.

Латур Б. Политики природы / Пер. с фр. Е. Блинов. М.: Ад Маргинем Пресс, 2018. 336 с.

Николс Т. Смерть экспертизы. Как интернет убивает научные знания / Пер. с англ. Т.Л. Платонова. М.: Эксмо, 2019. URL: НИКОЛС – Смерть экспертизы 2018.pdf (kyiv-heritage-guide.com) (дата обращения: 13.12.2023).

Ортега-и-Гассет Х. Восстание масс // Восстание масс: сб. / Пер. с исп. А.М. Гелескул. М.: ООО «Издательство АСТ», 2002. С. 11–208.

Оукшот М. Рационализм в политике // Рационализм в политике и другие статьи / Пер. с англ. И.И. Мюрберг. М.: Идея-Пресс, 2002. С. 7–37.

Пружинин Б.И. Экспертиза как эпистемологический феномен // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Философия и конфликтология. 2021. Т. 37. Вып. 3. С. 393–402.

Пружинин Б.И., Ветров В.А. Экспертиза как форма развития науки: фундаментальное vs прикладное // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Философия и конфликтология. 2022. Т. 38. Вып. 4. С. 534–546.

Тухватулина Л.А. Наука как объект веры и недоверия: феномен дениализма // Эпистемология и философия науки. 2023. Т. 60. № 1. С. 6–20.

Фейерабенд П. Наука в свободном обществе / Пер. с англ. А.Л. Никифоров. М.: АСТ, 2010. 378 с.

Хабермас Ю. Публичное пространство и политическая публичность // Между натурализмом и религией. Философские статьи / Пер. с нем. М.Б. Скуратова. М.: Весь Мир, 2011. С. 15–25.

Хабермас Ю. Коммуникативное действие и детрансцендентализированный разум // Между натурализмом и религией. Философские статьи / Пер. с нем. М.Б. Скуратова. М.: Весь Мир, 2011. С. 26–75.

Barnes, J. The Presocratic Philosophers. The Arguments of the Philosophers. London, New York: Routledge, 1982.

Bucchi, M., Trench, B. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Routledge, 2021.

Diskussija [Discussion], The Digital Scholar: Philosopher’s Lab, 3 (2), pp. 17–58. (In Russian)

Eyal, G., Mendez, T. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Expertise and Democratic Politics. Oxford University Press, 2023.

Feyerabend, P. Nauka v svobodnom obshhestve [Science in a Free Society], trans. by A.L. Nikiforov. Moscow: AST Publ., 2010. (In Russian)

Habermas, J. Kommunikativnoe dejstvie i detranscendentalizirovannyj razum [Communicative Action and Detranscendentalized Reason], in: Mezhdu naturalizmom i religiej. Filosofskie stat’i [Between Naturalism and Religion. Philosophical Articles], trans. by M.B. Skuratova. Moscow: Ves’ Mir, 2011, pp. 26–75. (In Russian)

Habermas, J. Publichnoe prostranstvo i politicheskaja publichnost’ [Public Space and Political Publicity], in: Mezhdu naturalizmom i religiej. Filosofskie stat’i [Between Naturalism and Religion. Philosophical Articles], trans. by M.B. Skuratova. Moscow: Ves’ Mir, 2011, pp. 15–25. (In Russian)

Latour, B. Nauka v dejstvii: sleduja za uchenymi i inzhenerami vnutri obshhestva [Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society], trans. by K. Fedorova. Saint Petersburg: Evropejskiy universitet v Sankt-Peterburge Publ., 2013. (In Russian)

Latour, B. Politiki prirody [Politics of the Nature], trans. by E. Blinov. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press, 2018. (In Russian)

Nichols, T. Smert’ jekspertizy. Kak internet ubivaet nauchnye znanija [The Death of Expertise: the Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters], trans. by T.L. Platonova. Moscow: Eksmo, 2019. (In Russian)

Oakeshott, M. Ratsionalizm v politike [Rationalism in Politics], in: Racionalizm v politike i drugie stat’i [Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays], trans. by I.I. Mjurberg. Moscow: Ideja-Press, 2002, pp. 7–37. (In Russian)

Ortega y Gasset, J. Vosstanie mass [The Revolt of the Masses], in: Vosstanie mass: coll. [The Revolt of the Masses], trans. by A.M. Geleskul. Moscow: AST Publ., 2002, pp. 11–208. (In Russian)

Panel Discussion, Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2020, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 20–60. (In Russian)

Pruzhinin, B.I. Jekspertiza kak jepistemologicheskij fenomen [Expert Examination as an Epistemological Phenomenon], Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 2021, vol. 37, issue 3, pp. 393–402. (In Russian)

Pruzhinin, B.I., Vetrov, V.A. Jekspertiza kak forma razvitija nauki: fundamental’noe vs prikladnoe [Expertise as a Form of Development of Science: Fundamental vs Applied], Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 2022, vol. 38, issue 4, pp. 534–546. (In Russian)

Tukhvatulina, L.A. Nauka kak ob’ekt very i nedoverija: fenomen denializma [Science as an Object of Faith and Distrust: the Phenomenon of Denialism], Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2023, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 6–20. (In Russian)

Published

2024-12-05

How to Cite

[1]
2024. EXPERTS VS SOCIETY: ON THE WAY TO COOPERATION. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. 61, 4 (Dec. 2024), 129–145. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202461462.