This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Carolan, M. S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Bright- and Blind-Spots of Science: Why Objective Knowledge is not Enough to Resolve Environmental Controversies

Colorado State University, USA, mcarolan{at}lamar.colostate.edu

This article investigates why science often does not speak with one voice within the context of environmental controversies. I argue that sociologists must be willing to turn to those processes and phenomena that are internal to science. In doing this, we find that many environmental conflicts are products, at least in part, of science itself. What is it about science that helps to breed these conflicts? In answering this question, this article first reflects upon the effects that disciplinary and methodological diversity have on scientific disputes. Attention then turns to the topics of proof and consensus, highlighting how these terms have often been employed to amplify conflict. I then speak to how science presupposes values. The article concludes by making policy-relevant suggestions about how to `do' environmental science in a way that acknowledges its various epistemic bright- and blind-spots.

Key Words: consensus • controversy • global climate change • proof • uncertainty

Critical Sociology, Vol. 34, No. 5, 725-740 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0896920508093365


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?