Modern Trends of Perceiving Scientific and Expert Knowledge in the Society
Acknowledgments
The study was supported by the RGNF grant (project № 16-18-10411) at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Russian Foreign Ministry
How to Cite
Nebolsina E.V. 2018. Modern Trends of Perceiving Scientific and Expert Knowledge in the Society — Sociologicheskaja nauka i social’naja praktika. Vol. 6. No. 4. P. 41-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/snsp.2018.6.4.6082
Abstract
Modern society facing the necessity of dealing with global warming, estimating the consequences of rapid development of new technologies and securing favorable living environment tends to have ambiguous opinion on the results of research conducted by scientists and experts. Scientific achievements of latest centuries have been aimed not only at improving the level of life of the population but at solving political problems by means of developing and spreading nuclear energy and different viruses. For decades reputable scientists have been invited to tele- and radio studios to discuss new efficient vaccines, vitamins, harm and benefits of electro-magnetic emission of mobile phones. A huge flow of information prevents the viewers and listeners of such programmes from being able to define whether reason moves scientists or they are eager to make fortune on advertising which makes common citizens doubt available data and trust scientists less. Meanwhile, academia and other experts in the field realizing the burden of potential consequences are trying to look into the current state of affairs in order to finally improve the quality of scientific research and get across to those whom this research is aimed at. On the basis of analysis of a range of argumentative materials the author outlines changes in major components of understanding trust in science and factors building up the authority of science in the society as well as specifies potential stimulus of strengthening trust in science.
Keywords:
trust in science, expert knowledge, public opinion, authenticity of information, trustworthiness
References
Doverie k znaniyu v usloviyah sotcial'noj turbulentnosti: riski, uyazvimosti, vyzovy bezopasnosti. [The credibility of the knowledge in the conditions of social turbulence: risks, vulnerability, security challenges]. Ed. by S. A. Kravchenko. M.: MGIMO-Universitet, 2018. 274 p. (In Russ.).
Gumanisticheskij povorot: imperativ chelovecheskoj tcivilizatcii. [Humanistic twist: the imperative of human civilization. Monograph]. Ed. By S. A. Kravchenko. M.: MGIMO-Universitet, 2018. 209 p. (In Russ.).
Kravchenko S. A. K itogam VIII Konferentcii evropejskoj sotciologicheskoj assotciatcii: teoreticheskie i metodologicheskie novatcii. [To the results of the VIII Conference of the European sociological Association: theoretical and methodological innovations]. Sociologicheskie issledovaniya. 2008. № 2. P. 3–9. (In Russ.).
Kravchenko S. A. Pereotkrytie sotcial'noj real'nosti kak pokazatel' validnosti sotciologicheskogo znaniya. [Rediscovering social reality as an indicator of the validity of sociological knowledge]. Sociologicheskie issledovaniya. 2014. № 5. P. 27–37. (In Russ.).
Kravchenko S. A. Sosushchestvovanie riskofobii i riskofilii – proyavlenie «normal'noj anomii». [The coexistence of riskophobia and riskophilia – an expression of “normal anomie”]. Sociologicheskie issledovaniya. 2017. № 2. P. 3–3. (In Russ.).
Nebol'sina E. V. Novye riski i ih vliyanie na strahovoj rynok. [Emerging risks and their impact on the insurance market]. Strahovoe delo. 2016. № 12. P. 11–19. (In Russ.).
Nefedova A. I, Fursov K. S. Obshchestvennoe mnenie o razvitii nauki I tekhnologij. [Public opinion on development of science and technology]. Institut statisticheskih issledovaniĭ I ehkonomiki znanii NIUVSHE. 2016 [Ehlektronnyj resurs]. URL: https://issek.hse.ru/data/2016/08/24/1118368121/NTI_N_14_24082016.pdf (Data obrascheniija: 26.05.2018). (In Russ.).
«Postpravda» stala slovom goda po versii Oksfordskogo slovarya. [“Post-truth has become a catchphrase of the year according to Oxford Dictionary”]. BBC. 2016. [Ehlektronnyj resurs]. URL: https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-37995176 (In Russ.).
ALLEA Discussion paper. Loss of Trust? Loss of Trustworthiness? Truth and Expertise today. May 2018. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ALLEA_Discussion_Paper_1_Truth_and_Expertise_Today-digital.pdf (Date of access: 26.05.2018).
Belluz J. Too many studies have hidden conflicts of interest. A new tool makes it easier to see them. 2017. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.vox.com/2017/4/19/15350048/pubmed-publishing-conflicts-of-interest-funding-information (Date of access: 26.05.2018).
Cass R. Sunstein #republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2017.
Collini S. What are universities for? London: PenguinBooks, 2012.
Hawley K. Trust: A Very Short Introduction// Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2012.
Hosking G. Trust: Money, Markets and Society. Calcutta: Seagull Books, 2010.
Moedas C. Why should we trust science? 2017. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/why-should-we-trust-science/40511/ (Date of access: 26.05.2018).
Muller J. Z. The Tyranny of Metrics. Princeton and Oxford. Princeton University Press, 2018.
Nestle M. Six industry-funded studies. The score for the year: 156/12. 2016. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.foodpolitics.com/2016/03/six-industry-funded-studies-the-score-for-the-year-15612/ (Date of access: 26.05.2018).
Saltelli A. Science’s credibility crisis: why it will get worse before it can get better. [Electronic resource]. The Conversation. 2017. URL: https://theconversation.com/sciences-credibility-crisis-why-it-will-get-worse-before-it-can-get-better-86865 (Date of access: 26.05.2018).
Willis P. Trust in science. The Loss of Science and the Loss of Humanity. [Electronic resource]. Australia’s Science Channel. 2017. URL:https://australiascience.tv/author/paul_willis/ (Date of access: 26.05.2018).
Ziegler R., Schaefer M. S., Lindholm M. Trusting science in an age of distrust [Electronic resource]. Euroscientist. December 2017. URL: https://www.euroscientist.com/trusting-science-age-distrust/ (Date of access: 26.05.2018).
Gumanisticheskij povorot: imperativ chelovecheskoj tcivilizatcii. [Humanistic twist: the imperative of human civilization. Monograph]. Ed. By S. A. Kravchenko. M.: MGIMO-Universitet, 2018. 209 p. (In Russ.).
Kravchenko S. A. K itogam VIII Konferentcii evropejskoj sotciologicheskoj assotciatcii: teoreticheskie i metodologicheskie novatcii. [To the results of the VIII Conference of the European sociological Association: theoretical and methodological innovations]. Sociologicheskie issledovaniya. 2008. № 2. P. 3–9. (In Russ.).
Kravchenko S. A. Pereotkrytie sotcial'noj real'nosti kak pokazatel' validnosti sotciologicheskogo znaniya. [Rediscovering social reality as an indicator of the validity of sociological knowledge]. Sociologicheskie issledovaniya. 2014. № 5. P. 27–37. (In Russ.).
Kravchenko S. A. Sosushchestvovanie riskofobii i riskofilii – proyavlenie «normal'noj anomii». [The coexistence of riskophobia and riskophilia – an expression of “normal anomie”]. Sociologicheskie issledovaniya. 2017. № 2. P. 3–3. (In Russ.).
Nebol'sina E. V. Novye riski i ih vliyanie na strahovoj rynok. [Emerging risks and their impact on the insurance market]. Strahovoe delo. 2016. № 12. P. 11–19. (In Russ.).
Nefedova A. I, Fursov K. S. Obshchestvennoe mnenie o razvitii nauki I tekhnologij. [Public opinion on development of science and technology]. Institut statisticheskih issledovaniĭ I ehkonomiki znanii NIUVSHE. 2016 [Ehlektronnyj resurs]. URL: https://issek.hse.ru/data/2016/08/24/1118368121/NTI_N_14_24082016.pdf (Data obrascheniija: 26.05.2018). (In Russ.).
«Postpravda» stala slovom goda po versii Oksfordskogo slovarya. [“Post-truth has become a catchphrase of the year according to Oxford Dictionary”]. BBC. 2016. [Ehlektronnyj resurs]. URL: https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-37995176 (In Russ.).
ALLEA Discussion paper. Loss of Trust? Loss of Trustworthiness? Truth and Expertise today. May 2018. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ALLEA_Discussion_Paper_1_Truth_and_Expertise_Today-digital.pdf (Date of access: 26.05.2018).
Belluz J. Too many studies have hidden conflicts of interest. A new tool makes it easier to see them. 2017. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.vox.com/2017/4/19/15350048/pubmed-publishing-conflicts-of-interest-funding-information (Date of access: 26.05.2018).
Cass R. Sunstein #republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2017.
Collini S. What are universities for? London: PenguinBooks, 2012.
Hawley K. Trust: A Very Short Introduction// Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2012.
Hosking G. Trust: Money, Markets and Society. Calcutta: Seagull Books, 2010.
Moedas C. Why should we trust science? 2017. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/why-should-we-trust-science/40511/ (Date of access: 26.05.2018).
Muller J. Z. The Tyranny of Metrics. Princeton and Oxford. Princeton University Press, 2018.
Nestle M. Six industry-funded studies. The score for the year: 156/12. 2016. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.foodpolitics.com/2016/03/six-industry-funded-studies-the-score-for-the-year-15612/ (Date of access: 26.05.2018).
Saltelli A. Science’s credibility crisis: why it will get worse before it can get better. [Electronic resource]. The Conversation. 2017. URL: https://theconversation.com/sciences-credibility-crisis-why-it-will-get-worse-before-it-can-get-better-86865 (Date of access: 26.05.2018).
Willis P. Trust in science. The Loss of Science and the Loss of Humanity. [Electronic resource]. Australia’s Science Channel. 2017. URL:https://australiascience.tv/author/paul_willis/ (Date of access: 26.05.2018).
Ziegler R., Schaefer M. S., Lindholm M. Trusting science in an age of distrust [Electronic resource]. Euroscientist. December 2017. URL: https://www.euroscientist.com/trusting-science-age-distrust/ (Date of access: 26.05.2018).
Citation Formats
Other cite formats:
Harvard
Nebolsina, E. V. (2018) ’Modern Trends of Perceiving Scientific and Expert Knowledge in the Society’, Sociologicheskaja nauka i social’naja praktika, 6(4), pp. 41-50. doi: https://doi.org/10.19181/snsp.2018.6.4.6082.
Section
SOCIOLOGY OF СULTURE
Publisher: Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (FCTAS RAS)