Achtung! Das Lehrangebot ist noch nicht vollständig und wird bis Semesterbeginn laufend ergänzt.
180005 SE Trust in Science (2020S)
Prüfungsimmanente Lehrveranstaltung
Labels
An/Abmeldung
Hinweis: Ihr Anmeldezeitpunkt innerhalb der Frist hat keine Auswirkungen auf die Platzvergabe (kein "first come, first served").
- Anmeldung von Fr 14.02.2020 09:00 bis Mo 24.02.2020 10:00
- Anmeldung von Mi 26.02.2020 09:00 bis Mo 02.03.2020 10:00
- Abmeldung bis Do 30.04.2020 23:59
Details
max. 30 Teilnehmer*innen
Sprache: Deutsch
Lehrende
Termine (iCal) - nächster Termin ist mit N markiert
- Mittwoch 06.05. 09:45 - 13:00 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Freitag 08.05. 09:45 - 13:00 Hörsaal 3F NIG 3.Stock
- Samstag 06.06. 09:45 - 14:00 Hörsaal 3F NIG 3.Stock
- Samstag 13.06. 09:45 - 14:00 Hörsaal 3F NIG 3.Stock
- Samstag 20.06. 09:45 - 14:00 Hörsaal 3F NIG 3.Stock
- Samstag 27.06. 09:45 - 14:00 Hörsaal 3F NIG 3.Stock
Information
Ziele, Inhalte und Methode der Lehrveranstaltung
Art der Leistungskontrolle und erlaubte Hilfsmittel
The seminar consists of lectures (6 full hours) and seminar work (16 full hours). Evaluation is based on
- 10%: Participation in lectures and seminars (including required readings)
- 40%: Seminar presentation and discussion (20 + 10 minutes)
- 50%: Seminar paper (10-15 pages) due July 20th
Absences policy: One absence is allowed. Other absences should be adequately motivated. Unjustified absences will impact one’s final grade
- 10%: Participation in lectures and seminars (including required readings)
- 40%: Seminar presentation and discussion (20 + 10 minutes)
- 50%: Seminar paper (10-15 pages) due July 20th
Absences policy: One absence is allowed. Other absences should be adequately motivated. Unjustified absences will impact one’s final grade
Mindestanforderungen und Beurteilungsmaßstab
Prüfungsstoff
Literatur
Anderson, E. (2011). Democracy, Public Policy, and Lay Assessment of Scientific Testimony. Episteme, 8 (2), pp. 144-164.
Frost-Arnold, K. (2013). Moral Trust & Scientific Collaboration. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 44, pp. 301-310.
Goldenberg, M. J. (2016). Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy. Perspectives on Science, 24 (5), pp. 552-581.
Goldman, A. (2001). Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63 (1), pp. 85-109.
Hardwig, J. (1991). The Role of Trust in Knowledge. Journal of Philosophy, 88 (12), pp. 693-708.
John, S. (2018). Epistemic trust and the ethics of science communication: against transparency, openness, sincerity and honesty. Social Epistemology, 32 (2), pp. 75-87.
Rolin, K. (2015). Values in Science: The Case of Scientific Collaboration. Philosophy of Science, 82 (2), pp. 157-177.
Frost-Arnold, K. (2013). Moral Trust & Scientific Collaboration. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 44, pp. 301-310.
Goldenberg, M. J. (2016). Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy. Perspectives on Science, 24 (5), pp. 552-581.
Goldman, A. (2001). Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63 (1), pp. 85-109.
Hardwig, J. (1991). The Role of Trust in Knowledge. Journal of Philosophy, 88 (12), pp. 693-708.
John, S. (2018). Epistemic trust and the ethics of science communication: against transparency, openness, sincerity and honesty. Social Epistemology, 32 (2), pp. 75-87.
Rolin, K. (2015). Values in Science: The Case of Scientific Collaboration. Philosophy of Science, 82 (2), pp. 157-177.
Zuordnung im Vorlesungsverzeichnis
Letzte Änderung: Sa 10.09.2022 00:19
Learning outcomes: The participants understand the epistemic role that trust plays in research groups, scientific communities, and the relations these communities have with the society. They are prepared to discuss such questions as: What can ground epistemic trust in an individual testifier? What can ground trust in (or reliance on) the social practices of scientific communities and the institutions of science? They are familiar with the challenges that citizens encounter when they attempt to assess the trustworthiness of experts who disagree.