@incollection {4346560, title = {Explicating ways of consensus-making in science and society: distinguishing the academic, the interface and the meta-consensus}, booktitle = {Experts and consensus in social science}, year = {2015}, pages = {71{\textendash}92}, publisher = {Springer}, abstract = {

In this paper, we shed new light on the epistemic struggle between establishing consensus and acknowledging plurality, by explicating different ways of consensus-making in science and society and examining the impact hereof on their field of intersection, i.e. consensus conferences (in particular those organized by the National Institute of Health). We draw a distinction between, what we call, academic and interface consensus, to capture the wide appeal to consensus in existing literature. We investigate such accounts - i.e. Solomon (2007), Beatty \& Moore (2010) and Miller (2013) – as to put forth a new understanding of consensus-making, focusing on the meta-consensus. We further defend how (NIH) consensus conferences enable epistemic work, through demands of epistemic adequacy and contestability, contrary to the claim that consensus conferences miss a window for epistemic opportunity (Solomon, 2007). Paying attention to this dynamics surrounding consensus, moreover allows us to illustrate how the public understanding of science and the public use of the ideal of consensus could be well modified.

}, author = {Kosolosky, Laszlo and Van Bouwel, Jeroen}, editor = {Martini, Carlo and Boumans, Marcel} } @article {Kosolosky2014, title = {Editorial and interview with {J}ustin {B}iddle}, journal = {The Reasoner}, volume = {8}, number = {5}, year = {2014}, pages = {47{\textendash}50}, author = {Kosolosky, Laszlo} } @article {4254489, title = {The epistemic integrity of NASA practices in the space shuttle program}, journal = {ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH - POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE}, volume = {20}, number = {2}, year = {2013}, pages = {72{\textendash}92}, abstract = {

This article presents an account of epistemic integrity and uses it to demonstrate that the epistemic integrity of different kinds of practices in NASA{\textquoteright}s Space Shuttle Program was limited. We focus on the following kinds of practices: (1) research by working engineers, (2) review by middle-level managers, and (3) communication with the public. We argue that the epistemic integrity of these practices was undermined by production pressure at NASA, i.e., the pressure to launch an unreasonable amount of flights per year. Finally, our findings are used to develop some potential strategies to protect epistemic integrity in aerospace science.

}, issn = {0898-9621}, doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.767122}, author = {De Winter, Jan and Kosolosky, Laszlo} } @article {2999532, title = {The epistemic integrity of scientific research}, journal = {SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS}, volume = {19}, year = {2013}, pages = {757{\textendash}774}, abstract = {

We live in a world in which scientific expertise and its epistemic authority become more important. On the other hand, the financial interests in research, which could potentially corrupt science, are increasing. Due to these two tendencies, a concern for the integrity of scientific research becomes increasingly vital. This concern is, however, hollow if we do not have a clear account of research integrity. Therefore, it is important that we explicate this concept. Following Rudolf Carnap’s characterization of the task of explication, this means that we should develop a concept that is (1) similar to our common sense notion of research integrity, (2) exact, (3) fruitful, and (4) as simple as possible. Since existing concepts do not meet these four requirements, we develop a new concept in this article. We describe a concept of epistemic integrity that is based on the property of deceptiveness, and argue that this concept does meet Carnap’s four requirements of explication. To illustrate and support our claims we use several examples from scientific practice, mainly from biomedical research.

}, issn = {1353-3452}, author = {De Winter, Jan and Kosolosky, Laszlo} } @article {1096409, title = {Expertise doordacht: reflectie via klimaatanalyse}, journal = {Ethiek en Maatschappij}, volume = {13}, number = {1}, year = {2010}, pages = {72{\textendash}82}, abstract = {

This paper analyses four theoretical problems concerning the notion of expertise and tries to formulate answers by scrutinizing these problems in light of scientific practice. The focus will be on the problems arising from the interference of experts in democratic decision making. I formulate my answers by referring to the Review-process of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Analysing how expertise influences this particular scientific practice is an example of how social-epistemological research is done and has to be done.

}, issn = {1373-0975}, author = {Kosolosky, Laszlo} }