Advanced

The Explanatory Value of Cognitive Asymmetries in Policy Controversies

Zenker, Frank LU (2012) Between Scientists and Citizens In 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:
author
organization
publishing date
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
in
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
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
2012-10-25 16:31:12
date last changed
2016-04-16 07:12:36
@misc{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},
  editor       = {Jean, Goodwin},
  isbn         = {978-1478152347},
  keyword      = {ad hominem,ad verecundiam,deficit model,ethos,expert,lay audience,logos,trust,values},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {441--451},
  publisher    = {ARRAY(0x8a83770)},
  series       = {Between Scientists and Citizens},
  title        = {The Explanatory Value of Cognitive Asymmetries in Policy Controversies},
  year         = {2012},
}