Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Experts and Consensus in Social Science pp 1–13Cite as

Introduction: Experts and Consensus in Social Science

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1209 Accesses

Part of the book series: Ethical Economy ((SEEP,volume 50))

Abstract

The ideals of science as objectivity and consensus are – unsurprisingly – not so easy to attain in scientific practice. Science is ultimately a product of individual scientists with their own personal backgrounds and experiences, and there is no unique methodology to de-personalize and objectify knowledge. Social scientists, in particular, use a variety of tools for their investigations: They gather evidence from different sources, under different conditions and with different instruments. They are both the locus where different sources of evidence aggregate and also a direct source of evidence that comes in as intuitions and background knowledge. Acknowledging this wide variety of sources of evidence and methods in social science, different kinds of methodologies for reaching consensus have been developed. What kind of consensus is indicative of good science? What are the rules for consensus formation? And, is there a normative aspect to the formation of scientific and policy making consensus? The contributions of this book focus on experts: those institutional figures that act as a liaison between science and policy makers, politicians, governments, and other public domains.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aspinall, W. 2010. A route to more tractable expert advice. Nature 463(21): 294–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, Olivier. 2009. The state of macro. Annual Review of Economics 1: 209–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boumans, Marcel. 2008. Battle in the planning office: Field experts versus normative statisticians. Social Epistemology 22(4): 389–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemen, R.T. 2008. Comment on Cooke’s classical method. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 93(5): 760–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Harry, and Robert Evans. 2007. Rethinking expertise. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, Roger M. 1991. Experts in uncertainty: Opinions and subjective probability in science. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, Roger M., and Luis L.H.J. Goossens. 2008. TU Delft expert judgment data base. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 93: 657–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey, Norman C. 1969. An experimental study of group opinion: The Delphi method. Futures 1(5): 408–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey, N.C., D.L. Rourke, R. Lewis, and D. Snyder (eds.). 1972. Studies in the quality of life: Delphi and decision-making. Lexington: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • den Butter, Frank A.G., and Mary S. Morgan. 1998. What makes the models-policy interaction successful? Economic Modelling 15: 443–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, Heather E. 2009. Science, policy and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downward, Paul M., and Andrew Mearman. 2008. Decision-making at the Bank of England: A critical appraisal. Oxford Economic Papers 60: 385–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, Paul. 1975. Against method. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galison, Peter L. 1992. Big science: The growth of large-scale research. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A. 1999. Knowledge in a social world. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Helmer, Olaf. 1983. Looking forward. A guide to futures research. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmer, Olaf and Nicholas Rescher. 1958. On the epistemology of the inexact sciences, RAND paper N. p 1513. The RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, Carl G. 1952. Symposium: Problems of concept and theory formation in the social sciences. In Science, language, and human rights, eds. Roderick Firth and Max Black. 65–86. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, David. 1988. Science as process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jick, Todd D. 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly 24: 602–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd enlarged edition. International encyclopedia of unified science, vol. 2, no. 2. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • List, Christian, and Philip Pettit. 2011. Group agency: The possibility, design, and status of corporate agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, Helen E. 1990. Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, Alfred. [1890] 1920. Principles of economics, 8th ed. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martini, Carlo. 2014a. The role of experts in the methodology of economics. The Journal of Economic Methodology 21(1): 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martini, Carlo. 2014b. Experts in science: A view from the trenches. Synthese 191: 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, Scott E. 2007. The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, Julian. 2008. Error in economics: Towards a more evidence-based methodology. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, Alexander. 1994. If economics isn’t science, what is it? In The philosophy of economics: An anthology, ed. Daniel Hausman, 376–394. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, Miriam. 1994. Social empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M. 2007. The social epistemology of NIH consensus conferences. In Establishing medical reality: Methodological and metaphysical issues in philosophy of medicine, ed. H. Kincaid and J. McKitrick. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen, Jan. [1982] 2003. The need of a synthesis. In Jan Tinbergen. The centennial volume, ed. J. Kolpp, 303–306. Rotterdam University. Translation of De noodzaak van een synthese. Economisch Statistische Berichten 1-12-1982, 1284–1285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trout, J.D. 2009. The empathy gap. New York: Viking/Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuomela, Raimo. 2013. Social ontology: Collective intentionality and group agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, University of Amsterdam, Valckenierstraat 65, 1018 XE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Marcel Boumans

  2. Department of Political and Economic Studies, University of Helsinki, Unioninkatu 40A, office A509, Helsinki, Finland

    Carlo Martini

Authors
  1. Marcel Boumans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlo Martini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcel Boumans .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political and Economic Studies, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Carlo Martini

  2. Department of Economics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Marcel Boumans

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Boumans, M., Martini, C. (2014). Introduction: Experts and Consensus in Social Science. In: Martini, C., Boumans, M. (eds) Experts and Consensus in Social Science. Ethical Economy, vol 50. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08551-7_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation