Fact, friction, and political conviction in science policy controversies

Social Epistemology

Volumn 14, Issue 2-3, 2000, Pages 89-107

  Mitchell, Gordon R ^a   Paroske, Marcus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010526754     PISSN: 02691728     EISSN: 14645297     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02691720050199180     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Andersen, P. A., 1993. Beyond criticism: The activist turn in the ideological debate, Western Journal of Speech Communications, 57, 247-256.
2. Barker, A. And Peters, B. G. (Eds), 1993. Politics of Expert Advice: Creating, Using, and Manipulating Scientific Knowledge for Public Policy (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
3. Beohmann, G., 1993. Democratic function of technology assessment in technology policy decision-making. Science and Public Policy, 20, 11-16.
4. Branham, R. J., 1991. Debate and Critical Analysis: The Harmony of Conict (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
5. Brante, T., 1993. Reasons for studying scientific and science-based controversies. In T. Brante, S. Fuller and W. Lynch (eds), Controversial Science: From Content to Contention (Albany, NY: Suny Press), pp. 177-191.
6. Campbell, D., 1988. Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
7. Chomsky, N., 1994. Keeping the Rabble in Line: Interviews with David Barsamian (Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press).
8. Cohen, J. L. And Arato, A., 1992. Civil Society and Political Theory (Cambridge, MA: Mit Press).
9. Condit, C., 1996. How bad science stays that way: Brain sex, demarcation, and the status of truth in the rhetoric of science. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 26, pp. 83-109.
10. Dickson, D., 1988. The New Politics of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
11. Dryzek, J. S., 1993. Policy analysis and planning: From science to argument. In F. Fischer and J. Forester (eds), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (Durham, NC: Duke University Press), pp. 213-232.
12. Dunn, W. N., 1993. Policy reforms as arguments. In F. Fischer and J. Forester (eds), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (Durham, NC: Duke University Press), pp. 245-290.
13. Elzinga, A., 1993. Science as continuation of politics by other means. In T. Brante, S. Fuller and W. Lynch (eds), Controversial Science: From Content to Contention (Albany, NY: Suny Press), pp. 127-152.
14. Engelhardt, H. T. And Caplan, A. L. (Eds) 1987. Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
15. Farrell, T. B., 1976. Knowledge, consensus, and rhetorical theory. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 62, 1-14.
16. Farrell, T. B., 1997. An elliptical postscript. In A. G. Gross and W. M. Keith (eds), Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science (Albany, NY: Suny Press), pp. 317-329.
17. Farrell, T. B. And Goodnight, G. T., 1981. Accidental rhetoric: The root metaphors of Three Mile Island. Communication Monographs, 48, 271-300.
18. Fischer, R., 1993. Policy discourse and the politics of Washington think tanks. In F. Fischer and J. Forester (eds), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (Durham, NC: Duke University Press), pp. 21-42.
19. Fuller, S., 1993a. A strategy for making science studies policy relevant. In T. Brante, S. Fuller and W. Lynch (eds), Controversial Science: From Content to Contention (Albany, NY: Suny Press), pp. 107-126.
20. Fuller, S., 1993b. Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge: The Coming of Science and Technology Studies (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press).
21. Fuller, S., 1998. Making science into an experimenting society. In W. N. Dunn (ed.), The Experimenting Society: Essays in Honor of Donald T. Campbell (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers), pp. 69-102.
22. Fuller, S., 1999. The Governance of Science (Buckingham: Open University Press).
23. Gaonkar, D., 1993. The idea of rhetoric in the rhetoric of science. Southern Communication Journal, 58, 258-295.
24. Gaonkar, D., 1997. Close readings of the third kind. In A. G. Gross and W. M. Keith (eds), Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science (Albany, NY: Suny Press), pp. 330-356.
25. Gieryn, T., 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
26. Gilbert, M. A., 1997. Coalescent Argumentation (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
27. Giroux, H., 1992. Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education (New York: Routledge).
28. Goodnight, G. T., 1982. The personal, technical, and public spheres of argumentation: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 18, 214-227.
29. Goodnight, G. T., 1991. Controversy. In D. W. Parson (ed.), Argumentin Controversy: Proceedings of the Seventh SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association), pp. 1-13.
30. Goodnight, G.T., 1993. A ‘new rhetoric’ for a ‘new dialectic’: Prolegomena to a responsible public argument. Argumentation, 7, 329-342.
31. Habermas, J., 1996. Betweenfacts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, translated by W. Rehg (Cambridge, MA: Mit Press).
32. Herrnstein, R. J. And Murray, C., 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (New York: Free Press).
33. Hollihan, T. A. And Baaske, K. T., 1994. Arguments and Arguing: The Products and Process of Human Decision Making (New York: St. Martin’s Press).
34. Jasanoff, S., 1987. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17, 195-230.
35. Jorgensen, C., 1998. Public debate-an act of hostility? Argumentation, 12, 431-443.
36. Kantrowitz, A., 1967. Proposal for an institution for scientific judgment. Science, 156, 763-764.
37. Kantrowitz, A. And Masters, R., 1985. Background on scientific adversary procedures. In A. Kantrowitz (ed.), Scientific Adversary Procedure: The computing aspects of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College).
38. Kemp, R., 1985. Planning, public hearings, and the politics of discourse. In J. Forester (ed.), Critical Theory and Public Life (Cambridge: Mit Press), pp. 177-201.
39. Kincheloe, J.L., 1993. Toward a Critical Politics of Teacher Thinking: Mapping the Postmodern (Westport, CN: Bergin and Garvey).
40. Kincheloe, J. L., Steinberg, S. R. And Gresson III, A. D. (Eds) 1996, Measured Lies: The Bell Curve Examined (New York: St. Martin’s Press).
41. Latour, B., 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).
42. Leff, M., 1997. The idea of rhetoric as interpretive practice: A humanist’s response to Gaonkar. In A. G. Gross and W. M. Keith (eds), Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science (Albany, NY: Suny Press), pp. 89-100.
43. Majone, G., 1989. Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press).
44. Martin, B., 1996. Sticking a needle into science: The case of polio vaccines and the origin of AIDS. Social Studies of Science, 26, 245-276.
45. Mazur, A., 1981. The Dynamics of Technical Controversy (Washington, DC: Communications Press).
46. McGee, M. C. And Lyne, J. R., 1987. What are nice folks like you doing in a place like this? Some entailments of treating knowledge claims rhetorically. In J. S. Nelson, A. Megill and D. N. Mccloskey (eds), The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press), pp. 381-406.
47. McMullin, E., 1992. The social dimensions of science. In E. Mcmullin (ed.), The Social Dimensions of Science (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press), pp. 1-26.
48. Mitchell, G., 1998. Pedagogical possibilities for argumentative agency in academic debate. Argumentation and Advocacy, 35, 41-60.
49. Peterson, J. C. (Ed.) 1984. Citizen Participation in Science Policy (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press).
50. Pinch, T., 1994. Cold fusion and the sociology of scientific knowledge. Technical Communication Quarterly, 3, 85-102.
51. Popper, K., 1945. The Open Society and its Enemies (New York: Harper and Row).
52. Popper, K., 1963. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).
53. th edn (New York: Longman).
54. Rose, H., 1998. Social criticism and the Human Genome Programme: Some reflections on the limits of a limited science. In P. Glasner and H. Rothman (eds), Genetic Imaginations: Ethical, Legal and Social Issues in Human Genome Research (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate), pp. 115-130.
55. Ross, A., 1996. Introduction to special issue. Social Text, 46, 1-14.
56. Rouse, J., 1992. What are cultural studies of scientific knowledge? Configurations, 1, 1-22.
57. Rowe, G. And Frewer, L., 2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 25, 3-29.
58. Sarewitz, D., 1996. Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress (Philadelphia: Temple University Press).
59. Simon, R. I. And Dippo, D., 1986. On critical ethnographic work. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 17, 195-202.
60. Swazey, J. P., 1992. Those who forget their history: Lessons from the recent past for the human genome quest. In G. J. Annas and G. Elias (eds), Gene Mapping: Using Law and Ethics as Guides (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 45-56.
61. Tannen, D., 1998. The Argument Culture: Stopping America’s War of Words (New York: Ballantine).
62. Taylor, C. A., 1996. Definingscience: A Rhetoric of Demarcation (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press).
63. Toulmin, S. E., 1958. The Uses of Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
64. rd edn (Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon).
65. rd edn (New York: Macmillan).
66. Webber, M. W., 1978. A difference paradigm for planning, in R. W. Burchell and G. Sternlieb (eds), Planning Theory in the 1980’s: A Search for Future Directions (New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy R e search), pp. 151-162.
67. Weinberg, A., 1972. Science and trans-science. Minerva, 10, 209-222.
68. Weiss, R. O., 1995. Public Argument (Lanham, MD: University Press of America).
69. Woodard, C., 2000. Payback time. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 56, 11-13.
70. Woolgar, S., 1991. The very idea of social epistemology: What prospects for a truly radical ‘radically naturalized epistemology’? Inquiry, 34, 377-389.
71. Yellin, J., 1983. Science, technology and administrative government: Institutional designs for environmental decision-making. Yale Law Journal, 92, 1300-1333.
72. rd edn (Boston: Allyn and Bacon).