-
Meditaciones Sobre La Oración. Confesiones De Un Viejo CardenalRevista Agustiniana 52 (158): 541. 2011.
-
4Belief or Nonbelief?: A ConfrontationArcade. 2012.One is the beloved author of The Name of the Rose, a celebrated scholar, philosopher, and self-declared secularist; the other is a preeminent clergyman and a respected expert on the New Testament. In this intellectually stimulating dialogue, often adversarial but always amicable, these two great men, who stand on opposite sides of the church door, discuss some of the most controversial issues of our day, including the apocalypse, abortion, women in the clergy, and ethics. As we voyage onward int…Read more
-
En dialog mellem kardinal Carlo Maria Martini og den italienske forfatter Umberto Eco om religiøse og verdslige emner.
-
99Countering vaccine hesitancy through medical expert endorsementVaccine 40 (32): 4635-4643. 2022.
-
28What “Evidence” in Evidence-Based Medicine?Topoi 40 (2): 299-305. 2020.The concept of evidence has gone unanalysed in much of the current debate between proponents and critics of evidence-based medicine. In this paper I will suggest that part of the controversy rests on an understanding of the word “evidence” that is too broad, and therefore contains the contradictions that allow both camps to defend their position and charge their adversaries. I will argue that reconciling the different meanings of the word ‘evidence’ in “evidence-based medicine” should help put E…Read more
-
48Climate Change and Culpable Ignorance: The Case of PseudoscienceSocial Epistemology 36 (4): 425-435. 2022.
-
21The Paradox Of Proof And Scientific ExpertiseHumana Mente 8 (28). 2015.In this paper I criticize the current standards for the acceptability of expert testimony in current US legislation. The standards have been the subject of much academic literature after the Frye and Daubert cases. I expose what I call the Paradox of Proof, and argue that the historical and current standards have sidestepped the problem of determining who is an expert and who is not in a court of law. I then investigate the problem of recognizing expertise from the layperson’s standpoint, and su…Read more
-
24Genuine versus bogus scientific controversies: the case of statinsHistory and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 43 (4): 1-23. 2021.Science progresses through debate and disagreement, and scientific controversies play a crucial role in the growth of scientific knowledge. However, not all controversies and disagreements are progressive in science. Sometimes, controversies can be pseudoscientific; in fact, bogus controversies, and what seem like genuine scientific disagreements, can be a distortion of science set up by non-scientific actors. Bogus controversies are detrimental to science because they can hinder scientific prog…Read more
-
174Knowledge Brokers in Crisis: Public Communication of Science During the COVID-19 PandemicSocial Epistemology 36 (5): 656-669. 2022.Knowledge brokers are among the main channels of communication between scientists and the public and a key element to establishing a relation of trust between the two. But translating knowledge from the scientific community to a wider audience presents several difficulties, which can be accentuated in times of crisis. In this paper we study some of the problems that knowledge brokers face when communicating in times of crisis. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, we collected intervie…Read more
-
27Introduction: Evidence, Expertise and Argumentation in Evidence-Based MedicineTopoi 40 (2): 295-298. 2020.[1st paragraph] A philosophical discussion on evidence-based medicine (EBM) can be probably perceived almost as an oxymoron. How can “the process of systematically finding, appraising, and using contemporaneous research findings as the basis for clinical decisions” (Jenicek 2012: 23) be compatible with the critical and systematic examination of fundamental problems such as the nature of being, reality, thinking, values and perception? How can a scientific field focused mainly on the search and e…Read more
-
56Ad Hominem Arguments, Rhetoric, and Science CommunicationStudies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 55 (1): 151-166. 2018.In this paper, I contend that evidence-focused strategies of science communication may be complemented by possibly more effective rhetorical arguments in current public debates on vaccines. I analyse the case of direct science communication - that is, communication of evidence - and show that it is difficult to effectively communicate evidential standards of science in the presence of well-equipped anti-science movements. Instead, I argue that effective rhetorical tools involve ad hominem strate…Read more
-
Ad hominem arguments, rhetoric, and science communicationIn Martin Hinton & Marcin Koszowy (eds.), The philosophy of argumentation, University of Białystok. 2018.
-
8Christian List and Philip Pettit's Group agency: the possibility, design, and status of corporate agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 240 pp (review)Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics 4 (2): 117. 2011.
-
10Experts and Consensus in Social Science (edited book)Imprint: Springer. 2014.This book brings together the research of philosophers and social scientists. It examines those areas of scientific practice where reliance on the subjective judgment of experts and practitioners is the main source of useful knowledge to address, and, possibly, bring solutions to social problems. A common phenomenon in applications of science is that objective evidence does not point to a single answer, or solution, to a problem. Reliance on subjective judgment, then, becomes necessary, despite …Read more
-
14Questioning Experts and ExpertiseRoutledge. 2022.This book brings together philosophers, sociologist and policy experts to discuss the nature, scope and limitations of expert advice in policy decisions. The chapters collected here address some of the most fundamental questions in the debate on the role of experts.
-
19The soul of economics: editorialJournal of Economic Methodology 30 (2): 71-79. 2023.The Financial Crisis of 2007–2009 has been one of the worst economic crises since the Great Depression of the 1930s. In addition to directly impacting the economy, it had substantial ramifications...
-
118Lateral reading and monetary incentives to spot disinformation about scienceScientific Reports 12 (1): 5678. 2022.
-
126Knowledge Brokers in Crisis : Public Communication of Science During the COVID-19 PandemicSocial Epistemology 36 (5): 565-669. 2022.
-
395Consensual Decision-Making Among Epistemic PeersEpisteme 6 (2): 110-129. 2009.This paper focuses on the question of how to resolve disagreement and uses the Lehrer-Wagner model as a formal tool for investigating consensual decision-making. The main result consists in a general definition of when agents treat each other as epistemic peers (Kelly 2005; Elga 2007), and a theorem vindicating the “equal weight view” to resolve disagreement among epistemic peers. We apply our findings to an analysis of the impact of social network structures on group deliberation processes, and…Read more
-
885Resolving Disagreement Through Mutual RespectErkenntnis 78 (4): 881-898. 2013.This paper explores the scope and limits of rational consensus through mutual respect, with the primary focus on the best known formal model of consensus: the Lehrer–Wagner model. We consider various arguments against the rationality of the Lehrer–Wagner model as a model of consensus about factual matters. We conclude that models such as this face problems in achieving rational consensus on disagreements about unknown factual matters, but that they hold considerable promise as models of how to r…Read more
-
35Applying Formal Social Epistemology to the Real WorldAnalyse & Kritik 34 (2): 383-398. 2012.The claim that diversity and independence have a net positive epistemic effect on the judgments of groups has been recently defended formally by Scott Page, among others, and popularized in Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds. In Meta-Induction and the Wisdom of Crowds Thorn and Schurz take issue with the claim that more diversity and independence in groups leads to better collective judgments. I argue that Thorn and Schurz's arguments are helpful in clarifying a number of over-generalizations abo…Read more
-
198Disagreement behind the veil of ignorancePhilosophical Studies 170 (3): 377-394. 2014.In this paper we argue that there is a kind of moral disagreement that survives the Rawlsian veil of ignorance. While a veil of ignorance eliminates sources of disagreement stemming from self-interest, it does not do anything to eliminate deeper sources of disagreement. These disagreements not only persist, but transform their structure once behind the veil of ignorance. We consider formal frameworks for exploring these differences in structure between interested and disinterested disagreement, …Read more
-
150Experts in science: a view from the trenchesSynthese 191 (1): 3-15. 2014.In this paper I analyze four so-called “principles of expertise”; that is, good epistemic practices that are normatively motivated by the epistemological literature on expert judgment. I highlight some of the problems that the four principles of expertise run into, when we try to implement them in concrete contexts of application (e.g. in science committees). I suggest some possible alternatives and adjustments to the principles, arguing in general that the epistemology of expertise should be in…Read more
-
4Christian List and Philip Pettit's Group agency: the possibility, design, and status of corporate agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 240 pp (review)Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics 4 (2): 117. 2011.
-
645A puzzle about belief updatingSynthese 190 (15): 3149-3160. 2013.In recent decades much literature has been produced on disagreement; the puzzling conclusion being that epistemic disagreement is, for the most part, either impossible (e.g. Aumann (Ann Stat 4(6):1236–1239, 1976)), or at least easily resolvable (e.g. Elga (Noûs 41(3):478–502, 2007)). In this paper I show that, under certain conditions, an equally puzzling result arises: that is, disagreement cannot be rationally resolved by belief updating. I suggest a solution to the puzzle which makes use of s…Read more
-
34Erratum to: Resolving Disagreement Through Mutual Respect (review)Erkenntnis 79 (S3): 669-670. 2014.
Areas of Specialization
Epistemology |
Philosophy of Social Science |
Areas of Interest
Epistemology |
Philosophy of Social Science |
17th/18th Century Philosophy |