img Leseprobe Leseprobe

Why Trust Science?

Naomi Oreskes

ca. 18,99
Amazon iTunes Hugendubel Bü kobo Osiander Google Books Barnes&Noble Legimi
* Affiliatelinks/Werbelinks
Hinweis: Affiliatelinks/Werbelinks
Links auf sind sogenannte Affiliate-Links. Wenn du auf so einen Affiliate-Link klickst und über diesen Link einkaufst, bekommt von dem betreffenden Online-Shop oder Anbieter eine Provision. Für dich verändert sich der Preis nicht.

Princeton University Press img Link Publisher

Sozialwissenschaften, Recht, Wirtschaft / Arbeits-, Wirtschafts- und Industriesoziologie


Why the social character of scientific knowledge makes it trustworthy

Are doctors right when they tell us vaccines are safe? Should we take climate experts at their word when they warn us about the perils of global warming? Why should we trust science when so many of our political leaders don't? Naomi Oreskes offers a bold and compelling defense of science, revealing why the social character of scientific knowledge is its greatest strength—and the greatest reason we can trust it. Tracing the history and philosophy of science from the late nineteenth century to today, this timely and provocative book features a new preface by Oreskes and critical responses by climate experts Ottmar Edenhofer and Martin Kowarsch, political scientist Jon Krosnick, philosopher of science Marc Lange, and science historian Susan Lindee, as well as a foreword by political theorist Stephen Macedo.



Symptom, Scientific revolution, Sunburn, History and philosophy of science, Cambridge University Press, Publication, Scientific theory, Suggestion, Sandra Harding, Adviser, Criticism, Statistical significance, Paradigm shift, Lecture, Philosophy, Environmental impact assessment, Environmentalist, Social science, Blind experiment, Explanation, Sociology, Science studies, Peer review, Scientific evidence, Experiment, Skepticism, Reason, Sunscreen, Political psychology, Americans, Psychology, Merchants of Doubt, Scientist, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Public health, Governance, Methodology, Adverse effect, Replication crisis, Empirical evidence, Vetting, Dental floss, Funding of science, Amgen, Princeton University, Public policy, Ottmar Edenhofer, Philosopher, Epistemology, Scientific opinion on climate change, Scientific consensus, Climate change, Geneticist, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science, Eugenics, Pascal's Wager, Reproducibility, Institution, Authoritarianism, Bruno Latour, Scientific method, Ideology, Misuse of statistics, Distrust, Biomedicine, Physicist, Logical positivism, Philosophy of science, Climatology, Naomi Oreskes, National Science Foundation, Scientific progress, Political science, Technology, Vaccination, Biologist, Decision-making, Empiricism, Funding, Morality, Rationality, Theory, Fallacy, Scientific community, Thomas Kuhn, Ludwik Fleck, Karl Popper, Result, Tax, Covid-19, Physician, Politics, Thought, Helen Longino, Continental drift, Global warming, Graduate school, Science, technology and society, Greenhouse gas