Abstract
How does the process of consensus formation affect the accuracy and reliability of our knowledge? Cognitive and epistemic division of labor creates a problem of trust in the use and application of knowledge. Consequently, the reliability of scientific consensus depends on whether the incentives, which the self-interested members of scientific communities face, are aligned in the right way.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Berggren N, Jordahl H, Stern C (2009) The political opinions of Swedish social scientists. Finn Econ Pap 22(2):75–88
Blaug M (1992) The methodology of economics, or, how economists explain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York
Bohman J (1999) Democracy as inquiry, inquiry as democratic: pragmatism, social science, and the cognitive division of labor. Am J Polit Sci 43(2):590–607. doi:10.2307/2991808
Brittan S (1973) Is there an economic consensus?: an attitude survey. Macmillan, London
Brock WA, Durlauf SN (1999) A formal model of theory choice in science. Econ Theory 14(1):113–130
Caplan B (2007) The Myth of the rational voter: why democracies choose bad policies. Princeton University Press, Princeton
David PA (1998) Communication norms and the collective cognitive performance of “invisible colleges.” In: Creation and transfer of knowledge. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 115–163. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-03738-6_7
Frey BS (2003) Publishing as prostitution? – choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success. Public Choice 116(1–2):205–223. doi:10.1023/A:1024208701874
Frey BS, Pommerehne WW, Schneider F, Gilbert G (1984) Consensus and dissension among economists: an empirical inquiry. Am Econ Rev 74(5):986–994. doi:10.2307/557
Gauchat G (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere a study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. Am Sociol Rev 77(2):167–187. doi:10.1177/0003122412438225
Gordon R, Dahl GB (2013) Views among economists: professional consensus or point-counterpoint? Am Econ Rev 103(3):629–635. doi:10.1257/aer.103.3.629
Hanson R (2013) Shall we vote on values, but bet on beliefs? J Polit Philos 21(2):151–178. doi:10.1111/jopp.12008
Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 14(2):147–174. doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
Kitcher P (1990) The division of cognitive labor. J Philos 87(1):5–22. doi:10.2307/2026796
Kitcher P (2002) Contrasting conceptions of social epistemology. In: Brad Wray K (ed) Knowledge and inquiry: readings in epistemology. Broadview Press, Peterborough
Klein DB, Davis WL, Hedengren D (2013) Economics professors’ voting, policy views, favorite economists, and frequent lack of consensus. Econ J Watch 10(1):116–125
May A, McGarvey MG, Whaples R (2013) Are disagreements among male and female economists marginal at best?: a survey of AEA members and their views on economic policy. Contemp Econ Policy. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/coep.12004/full
Mayer T (1993) Truth versus precision in economics. E. Elgar, Aldershot/Brookfield
Mill JS (1859) On liberty. In: Essays on politics and society, vol XVIII. University of Toronto Press, Toronto
Polanyi M (1962) The republic of science: its political and economic theory. Minerva 38(1):1–21
Polanyi M (1974) Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Šťastný D (2010) The economics of economics: why economists aren’t as important as garbagemen (but they might be). Instituto Bruno Leoni/CEVRO Institute and Wolters Kluwer, Turin/Prague
Sunstein CR (2002) Conformity and dissent. Law School, University of Chicago, Chicago. Retrieved from http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/34.crs_.conformity.pdf
Vanberg VJ (2010) The “science-as-market” analogy: a constitutional economics perspective. Constit Polit Econ 21(1):28–49. doi:10.1007/s10602-008-9061-5
Wolfers J, Zitzewitz E (2004) Prediction markets. J Econ Perspect 18(2):107–126. doi:10.2307/3216893
Zamora Bonilla JP (2008) The elementary economics of scientific consensus. Theor Rev Teoría Hist Fundam Cienc 14(3):461–488
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this entry
Cite this entry
Kuchař, P. (2014). Consensus. In: Backhaus, J. (eds) Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_30-2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_30-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7883-6
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences