January 22, 2016
Goodwin, Jean. (Forthcoming, 2018) Effective because ethical: Speech act theory as a framework for scientists’ communication. In Susanna Priest, Jean Goodwin & Michael Dahlstrom (Eds.), Ethics and practice in science communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
September 11, 2015
Goodwin, Jean. (2015). Comment exercer une autorité experte? Un scientifique confronté aux Sceptiques. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, 15. Retrieved from https://aad.revues.org/2035 [How to exercise expert authority: A case study of a scientist facing The Sceptics. (2015). How to exercise expert authority: A case study of a scientist facing The Sceptics.] Argumetation theorists’ primary loyalty should be […]
September 11, 2015
Goodwin, Jean. (2015). Climate scientist Stephen Schneider versus the Sceptics: A case study of argumentation in deep disagreement. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Sic Sat. Can deep disagreement be managed by argument? This case study examines the 2010 exchange between prominent climate scientist/climate […]
July 4, 2013
Sistemi Intelligenti 25 (2013) 9-38; very kindly translated by Fabio Paglieri from the original. Philosophers of argumentation and of testimony suggest that we can rely on what someone says because of its epistemic merits. If so, then we should never credit Wikipedia, since we cannot assess what its anonymous contributors know. I propose instead that […]
"Responsible" advocacy is still advocacy. To be good, it should be zealous. But zeal undermines scientific authority. So advising, not advocating, should be the speech act of choice.
Scientists can earn trust--but only by making themselves vulnerable.
Experts have methods for earning the trust of lay audiences--but using their authority is costly. I explain how.