The Explanatory Value of Cognitive Asymmetries in Policy Controversies
Zenker, Frank LU
(2012)
Between Scientists and Citizens
p.441-451
- Abstract
- Citing an epistemic or cognitive asymmetry between experts and the public, it is easy to view the relation between scientists and citizens as primarily based on trust, rather than on the content of expert argumentation. In criticism of this claim, four theses are defended: (1) Empirical studies suggest that content matters, while trust(worthiness) boasts persuasiveness. (2) In social policy controversies, genuine expert-solutions are normally not available; if trust is important here, then a clear role for cognitive asymmetry is wanting. (3) Social policy controversies pivot on values, so that biases and ideologies may explain participant behavior. (4) Few experts communicate perfectly; rather than cognitive ones, one might cite social... (More)
- Citing an epistemic or cognitive asymmetry between experts and the public, it is easy to view the relation between scientists and citizens as primarily based on trust, rather than on the content of expert argumentation. In criticism of this claim, four theses are defended: (1) Empirical studies suggest that content matters, while trust(worthiness) boasts persuasiveness. (2) In social policy controversies, genuine expert-solutions are normally not available; if trust is important here, then a clear role for cognitive asymmetry is wanting. (3) Social policy controversies pivot on values, so that biases and ideologies may explain participant behavior. (4) Few experts communicate perfectly; rather than cognitive ones, one might cite social differences (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/3157948
- author
- Zenker, Frank
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2012
- type
- Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- ad hominem, ad verecundiam, deficit model, ethos, expert, lay audience, logos, trust, values
- host publication
- Between Scientists and Citizens
- editor
- Jean, Goodwin
- pages
- 11 pages
- publisher
- Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation
- conference name
- Between Scientists and Citizens
- conference location
- Ames, Iowa, United States
- conference dates
- 2012-06-01
- external identifiers
-
- wos:000306788700040
- ISBN
- 978-1478152347
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 0df54b6e-c0af-4b04-9ea2-a9e4c811c750 (old id 3157948)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-04 09:53:39
- date last changed
- 2018-11-21 20:55:33
@inproceedings{0df54b6e-c0af-4b04-9ea2-a9e4c811c750,
abstract = {{Citing an epistemic or cognitive asymmetry between experts and the public, it is easy to view the relation between scientists and citizens as primarily based on trust, rather than on the content of expert argumentation. In criticism of this claim, four theses are defended: (1) Empirical studies suggest that content matters, while trust(worthiness) boasts persuasiveness. (2) In social policy controversies, genuine expert-solutions are normally not available; if trust is important here, then a clear role for cognitive asymmetry is wanting. (3) Social policy controversies pivot on values, so that biases and ideologies may explain participant behavior. (4) Few experts communicate perfectly; rather than cognitive ones, one might cite social differences}},
author = {{Zenker, Frank}},
booktitle = {{Between Scientists and Citizens}},
editor = {{Jean, Goodwin}},
isbn = {{978-1478152347}},
keywords = {{ad hominem; ad verecundiam; deficit model; ethos; expert; lay audience; logos; trust; values}},
language = {{eng}},
pages = {{441--451}},
publisher = {{Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation}},
title = {{The Explanatory Value of Cognitive Asymmetries in Policy Controversies}},
url = {{https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/files/5414695/3157949.pdf}},
year = {{2012}},
}