|
Showing 1 - 11 of
11 matches in All Departments
The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on
such areas as public health, environmental science, and issues
affecting quality of life. Our scientists have produced landmark
studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global
warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this
community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers.
Merchants of Doubt tells the story of how a loose-knit group of
high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep
connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to
mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge
over four decades. Remarkably, the same individuals surface
repeatedly - some of the same figures who have claimed that the
science of global warming is "not settled" denied the truth of
studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain,
and CFCs to the ozone hole. "Doubt is our product," wrote one
tobacco executive. These 'experts' supplied it. Naomi Oreskes and
Erik M. Conway, historians of science, roll back the rug on this
dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how
ideology and corporate interests, aided by a too-compliant media,
have skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing
issues of our era.
|
Why Trust Science? (Paperback)
Naomi Oreskes; Contributions by Ottmar Edenhofer, Jon Krosnick, M.Susan Lindee, Marc Lange, …
|
R492
Discovery Miles 4 920
|
Ships in 12 - 17 working days
|
Why the social character of scientific knowledge makes it
trustworthy Are doctors right when they tell us vaccines are safe?
Should we take climate experts at their word when they warn us
about the perils of global warming? Why should we trust science
when so many of our political leaders don't? Naomi Oreskes offers a
bold and compelling defense of science, revealing why the social
character of scientific knowledge is its greatest strength-and the
greatest reason we can trust it. Tracing the history and philosophy
of science from the late nineteenth century to today, this timely
and provocative book features a new preface by Oreskes and critical
responses by climate experts Ottmar Edenhofer and Martin Kowarsch,
political scientist Jon Krosnick, philosopher of science Marc
Lange, and science historian Susan Lindee, as well as a foreword by
political theorist Stephen Macedo.
Can anyone today imagine the earth without its puzzle-piece
construction of plate tectonics? The very term, "plate tectonics,"
coined only thirty-five years ago, is now part of the vernacular,
part of everyone's understanding of the way the earth works.The
theory, research, data collection, and analysis that came together
in the late 1960's to cons
|
Why Trust Science? (Hardcover)
Naomi Oreskes; Contributions by Ottmar Edenhofer, Jon Krosnick, M.Susan Lindee, Marc Lange, …
|
R691
R548
Discovery Miles 5 480
Save R143 (21%)
|
Ships in 12 - 17 working days
|
Why the social character of scientific knowledge makes it
trustworthy Do doctors really know what they are talking about when
they tell us vaccines are safe? Should we take climate experts at
their word when they warn us about the perils of global warming?
Why should we trust science when our own politicians don't? In this
landmark book, Naomi Oreskes offers a bold and compelling defense
of science, revealing why the social character of scientific
knowledge is its greatest strength-and the greatest reason we can
trust it. Tracing the history and philosophy of science from the
late nineteenth century to today, Oreskes explains that, contrary
to popular belief, there is no single scientific method. Rather,
the trustworthiness of scientific claims derives from the social
process by which they are rigorously vetted. This process is not
perfect-nothing ever is when humans are involved-but she draws
vital lessons from cases where scientists got it wrong. Oreskes
shows how consensus is a crucial indicator of when a scientific
matter has been settled, and when the knowledge produced is likely
to be trustworthy. Based on the Tanner Lectures on Human Values at
Princeton University, this timely and provocative book features
critical responses by climate experts Ottmar Edenhofer and Martin
Kowarsch, political scientist Jon Krosnick, philosopher of science
Marc Lange, and science historian Susan Lindee, as well as a
foreword by political theorist Stephen Macedo.
Can anyone today imagine the earth without its puzzle-piece
construction of plate tectonics? The very term, plate tectonics, is
now part of the vernacular, part of everyone's understanding of the
way the earth works. The theory, research, data collection and
analysis that came together in 1967 to constitute plate tectonics
is one of the great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century.
Scholarly books have been written about tectonics, but none by the
key scientists themselves. In Plate Tectonics, editor Naomi Oreskes
has assembled those scientists who played key roles in developing
the theory to tell the stories of their involvement in the
extraordinary evolution of the theory.
The year is 2393, and a senior scholar of the Second People's
Republic of China presents a gripping and deeply disturbing account
of how the children of the Enlightenment, the political and
economic elites of the so-called advanced industrial societies,
entered into a Penumbral period in the early decades of the
twenty-first century, a time when sound science and rational
discourse about global change were prohibited and clear warnings of
climate catastrophe were ignored. What ensues when soaring
temperatures, rising sea levels, drought, and mass migrations
disrupt the global governmental and economic regimes? The Great
Collapse of 2093. This work is an important title that will change
how readers look at the world. Dramatizing climate change in ways
traditional nonfiction cannot, this inventive, at times humorous
work reasserts the importance of scientists and the work they do
and reveals the self-serving interests of the so called carbon
industrial complex that have turned the practice of sound science
into political fodder. The authors conclude with a critique of the
philosophical frameworks, most notably neo-liberalism, that do
their part to hasten civilization's demise.Based on sound
scholarship yet unafraid to tilt at sacred cows in both science and
policy, this book provides a welcome moment of clarity amid the
cacophony of climate change literature. It includes a lexicon of
historical and scientific terms that enriches the narrative and an
interview with the authors.
A vivid portrait of how Naval oversight shaped American
oceanography, revealing what difference it makes who pays for
science. What difference does it make who pays for science? Some
might say none. If scientists seek to discover fundamental truths
about the world, and they do so in an objective manner using
well-established methods, then how could it matter who's footing
the bill? History, however, suggests otherwise. In science, as
elsewhere, money is power. Tracing the recent history of
oceanography, Naomi Oreskes discloses dramatic changes in American
ocean science since the Cold War, uncovering how and why it
changed. Much of it has to do with who pays. After World War II,
the US military turned to a new, uncharted theater of warfare: the
deep sea. The earth sciences-particularly physical oceanography and
marine geophysics-became essential to the US Navy, which poured
unprecedented money and logistical support into their study.
Science on a Mission brings to light how this influx of military
funding was both enabling and constricting: it resulted in the
creation of important domains of knowledge but also significant,
lasting, and consequential domains of ignorance. As Oreskes delves
into the role of patronage in the history of science, what emerges
is a vivid portrait of how naval oversight transformed what we know
about the sea. It is a detailed, sweeping history that illuminates
the ways funding shapes the subject, scope, and tenor of scientific
work, and it raises profound questions about the purpose and
character of American science. What difference does it make who
pays? The short answer is: a lot.
What difference does it make who pays for science? Some might say
none. If scientists seek to discover fundamental truths about the
world, and they do so in an objective manner using well-established
methods, then how could it matter who's footing the bill? History,
however, suggests otherwise. In science, as elsewhere, money is
power. Tracing the recent history of oceanography, Naomi Oreskes
discloses dramatic changes in American ocean science since the Cold
War, uncovering how and why it changed. Much of it has to do with
who pays. After World War II, the US military turned to a new,
uncharted theater of warfare: the deep sea. The earth
sciences--particularly physical oceanography and marine
geophysics--became essential to the US navy, who poured
unprecedented money and logistical support into their study.
Science on a Mission brings to light how the influx of such
military funding was both enabling and constricting: it resulted in
the creation of important domains of knowledge, but also
significant, lasting, and consequential domains of ignorance. As
Oreskes delves into the role of patronage in the history of
science, what emerges is a vivid portrait of how naval oversight
transformed what we know about the sea. It is a detailed, sweeping
history that illuminates the ways in which funding shapes the
subject, scope, and tenor of scientific work, and it raises
profound questions over the purpose and character of American
science. What difference does it make who pays? The short answer
is: a lot.
How do scientists evaluate environmental knowledge for public
policy? Discerning Experts examines three sets of landmark
environmental assessments involving acid rain, ozone depletion, and
sea level rise, exploring how experts judge scientific evidence and
determine what the scientific facts are. The three case studies
also explore how scientists come to agreement on contested issues,
why consensus is considered important, and what factors contribute
to confusion, bias, and error, and how scientists understand and
navigate the boundaries between science and policy. The authors
also suggest strategies for improving the assessment process. As
the first study of the internal workings of large environmental
assessments, this book explores the strengths and weaknesses of the
assessment process and explains what it can—and cannot—be
expected to contribute to public policy and the common good.
In 1915, when Alfred Wegener proposed his theory of continental drift (that the positions the earth's continents are in flux), American earth scientists considered it a highly radical, new vision of the earth. British scientists, on the other hand, viewed the theory as a pleasing confirmation of a long-suspected notion. This initial difference in reaction continued for about fifty years afterward. This book compares the differences in reaction, proposing that the differing methodological commitments of the countries, rather than theoretical beliefs, had played a large role in the acceptance of the theory. it will also complement existing work on continental drift and the emergence of the study of plate tectonics.
|
You may like...
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
Morbius
Jared Leto, Matt Smith, …
DVD
R179
Discovery Miles 1 790
|