trust | Jean Goodwin

Browsing All posts tagged under »trust«

Should climate scientists fly? A case study of arguments at the system level

August 1, 2020

Goodwin, Jean. (2020). Should climate scientists fly? A case study of arguments at the system level. Informal Logic, 40(2), 157-203.

Demonstrating objectivity in controversial science communication: A case study of GMO scientist Kevin Folta.

October 13, 2018

Goodwin, Jean. (2016). Demonstrating objectivity in controversial science communication: A case study of GMO scientist Kevin Folta. OSSA Conference Archive. 69. Retrieved from https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/69 Scientists can find it difficult to be seen as objective within the chaos of a civic controversy. This paper gives a normative pragmatic account of the strategy one GMO scientist used […]

Objecting to Models: A Typology of Non-experts’ Critiques of Models of Human-Natural Systems

December 1, 2016

Goodwin, Jean. (2016). Objecting to Models: A Typology of Non-experts’ Critiques of Models of Human-Natural Systems. In Jean Goodwin (Ed.), Confronting the Challenges of Public Participation: Issues in Environmental, Planning and Health Decision-Making (pp. 39-49). Charleston, SC: CreateSpace.

Effective because ethical: Speech act theory as a framework for scientists’ communication

January 22, 2016

Goodwin, Jean. (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.

How to exercise expert authority: A case study of a scientist facing The Sceptics.

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 […]

Communication strategies for earning trust in climate change debates

December 3, 2013

Climate scientists need the trust of lay audiences if they are to share their knowledge. But significant audience segments—those doubtful or dismissive of climate change—distrust climate scientists.

Norms of advocacy

October 16, 2013

In Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22-26 May 2013, edited by D. Mohammed & M. Lewiński. Windsor, ON: OSSA, 2013. This essay advances an account of the ordinary speech activity of advocating. The ethical principles developed within advocacy professions such as law […]

L’autorità di Wikipedia/The Authority of Wikipedia

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 […]

Lippmann, the indispensable opposition

July 14, 2012

Lippmann's thoroughgoing pessimism may lead us to a better understanding of the role of communication in public deliberations between scientists and citizens.

What is ‘responsible advocacy’ in science? Good advice.

July 14, 2012

"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.