Science, politics and regulation: The trust-based approach to the demarcation problem

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 90 (C):1-9 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.08.006

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,865

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

A pragmatic approach to the demarcation problem.B. D. - 2000 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 31 (2):249-267.
A Pragmatic Approach To The Demarcation Problem.David B. Resnik - 2000 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 31 (2):249-267.
No one solution to the “new demarcation problem”?: A view from the trenches.Wendy E. Wagner - 2022 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 92 (C):177-185.
Kant, Mill, Durkheim? Trust and autonomy in bioethics and politics.Richard E. Ashcroft - 2003 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 34 (2):359-366.
Kant, Mill, Durkheim? Trust and autonomy in bioethics and politics.Richard E. Ashcroft - 2003 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 34 (2):359-366.
Cicero's demarcation of science: A report of shared criteria.Damian Fernandez Beanato - forthcoming - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A.
Pseudoscience as a Negative Outcome of Scientific Dialogue: A Pragmatic-Naturalistic Approach to the Demarcation Problem.Stefaan Blancke & Maarten Boudry - 2022 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 34 (3):183-198.
Cicero's demarcation of science: A report of shared criteria.Damian Fernandez-Beanato - 2020 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 83:97-102.
Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science From Bunk.Massimo Pigliucci - 2010 - University of Chicago Press.
Modelling gene regulation: (De)compositional and template-based strategies.Tarja Knuuttila & Vivette García Deister - 2019 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 77:101-111.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-01-05

Downloads
40 (#560,171)

6 months
12 (#293,221)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Stephen John
Cambridge University

Citations of this work

Varying Evidential Standards as a Matter of Justice.Ahmad Elabbar - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
Science as public service.Hannah Hilligardt - 2024 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 14 (3):1-25.
Harmful Research and the Paradox of Credibility.Torsten Wilholt - 2023 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 36 (3):193-209.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Experts: Which ones should you trust?Alvin I. Goldman - 2001 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (1):85-110.
The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments.Richard Rudner - 1953 - Philosophy of Science 20 (1):1-6.
The new demarcation problem.Bennett Holman & Torsten Wilholt - 2022 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 91 (C):211-220.
What Is Epistemic Public Trust in Science?Gürol Irzık & Faik Kurtulmuş - 2019 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 70 (4):1145-1166.
Epistemic Trust in Science.Torsten Wilholt - 2013 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (2):233-253.

View all 24 references / Add more references