The social space of doubt: Denialism, skepticism and the construction of knowledge
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2023 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por eng |
Título da fonte: | Estudos de Sociologia |
Texto Completo: | https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/estudos/article/view/17300 |
Resumo: | It might seem that any restriction on doubting is contrary to the progression of knowledge and undemocratic. This argument is used by different flavors of denialism. However, an examination of the way doubts work shows us that there are epistemic requirements for the legitimacy of doubt that are not met by denialisms. A consequence of this argument is that epistemic normativity is not absorbed by political normativity. The specificity of epistemic normativity, which explains why denialists' doubt is not legitimate, disappears in constructivist theories. Constructivist theses result from a confusion between the fact that theories are social constructs and the thesis that they construct the facts upon which the theory itself stands. The legitimacy of doubt depends on epistemic social filtering processes. Socially constructed epistemic filters reflect a profound fact of the evolution of human culture: the cumulative, social and asymmetrical production of knowledge. |
id |
UNESP-12_f6729e48890d949c584d8ef8c10f1559 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/17300 |
network_acronym_str |
UNESP-12 |
network_name_str |
Estudos de Sociologia |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
The social space of doubt: Denialism, skepticism and the construction of knowledgeEl espacio social de la duda: El negacionismo, el escepticismo y la construcción del conocimientoO espaço social da dúvida: Negacionismo, ceticismo e a construção do conhecimentoNegacionismoCeticismoDúvidaEpistemologiaConstrutivismoDenialismSkepticismDoubtsEpistemologyConstructivismNegacionismoEscepticismoDudaEpistemologíaConstructivismoIt might seem that any restriction on doubting is contrary to the progression of knowledge and undemocratic. This argument is used by different flavors of denialism. However, an examination of the way doubts work shows us that there are epistemic requirements for the legitimacy of doubt that are not met by denialisms. A consequence of this argument is that epistemic normativity is not absorbed by political normativity. The specificity of epistemic normativity, which explains why denialists' doubt is not legitimate, disappears in constructivist theories. Constructivist theses result from a confusion between the fact that theories are social constructs and the thesis that they construct the facts upon which the theory itself stands. The legitimacy of doubt depends on epistemic social filtering processes. Socially constructed epistemic filters reflect a profound fact of the evolution of human culture: the cumulative, social and asymmetrical production of knowledge.Podría parecer que cualquier restricción a la duda es contraria a la progresión del conocimiento y antidemocrática. Este argumento es utilizado por diferentes tipos de negacionismos. Sin embargo, un examen de la forma en que funcionan las dudas nos muestra que existen requisitos epistémicos para la legitimidad de la duda que no se cumplen con los negacionismos. Una consecuencia de este argumento es que la normatividad epistémica no es absorbida por la normatividad política. La especificidad de la normatividad epistémica, que explica por qué la duda de los negacionistas no es legítima, desaparece en las teorías constructivistas. Las tesis constructivistas resultan de una confusión entre el hecho de que las teorías son construcciones sociales y la tesis de que construyen los hechos sobre los que se sustenta la teoría misma. La legitimidad de la duda depende de procesos sociales de filtración epistémica. Los filtros epistémicos construidos socialmente reflejan un hecho profundo de la evolución de la cultura humana: la producción acumulativa, social y asimétrica de conocimiento.A première vue, on pourrait penser que toute restriction au doute est contraire à la progression des connaissances et antidémocratique. Cet argument est utilisé par différentes saveurs de négationnisme, du déni du réchauffement climatique anthropique au mouvement anti-vaccination. Malgré la plausibilité initiale de cette position, l'examen du fonctionnement des doutes nous montre qu'il existe des exigences épistémiques de légitimité du doute qui ne sont pas satisfaites par les négationnismes. Une conséquence de cet argument est que la normativité épistémique n'est pas absorbée par la normativité politique. La spécificité de la normativité épistémique, qui explique pourquoi le doute des négationnistes n'est pas légitime, disparaît dans les théories constructivistes. Les thèses constructivistes résultent d'une confusion entre le fait que les théories sont des constructions sociales et la thèse selon laquelle elles construisent les faits sur lesquels repose la théorie elle-même. La légitimité du doute dépend de connaissances spécialisées et passe par des processus de filtrage social. Les filtres épistémiques socialement construits reflètent un fait profond de l'évolution de la culture humaine, la production cumulative, sociale et asymétrique de connaissances.À primeira vista, pode-se pensar que toda restrição à dúvida é contrária à progressão do conhecimento e antidemocrática. Este argumento é utilizado por diferentes sabores de negacionismo. No entanto, um exame do modo como funcionam dúvidas nos mostra que existem exigências epistêmicas para a legitimidade da dúvida que não são satisfeitas pelos negacionismos. Uma consequência deste argumento é que a normatividade epistêmica não é absorvida pela normatividade política. A especificidade da normatividade epistêmica, que explica porque a dúvida de negacionistas não é legítima, desaparece em teorias construtivistas. Teses construtivistas resultam de uma confusão entre o fato de teorias serem construtos sociais e a tese que elas constroem os fatos sobre os quais portam a teoria ela mesma. A legitimidade da dúvida depende de processos sociais de filtragem epistêmica. Os filtros epistêmicos socialmente construídos refletem um fato profundo da evolução da cultura humana: a produção cumulativa, social e assimétrica do conhecimento.FCL-UNESP Laboratório Editorial2023-08-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfapplication/pdftext/htmlhttps://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/estudos/article/view/1730010.52780/res.v28iesp.1.17300Estudos de Sociologia; (2023), v. 28, n. esp. 1 - Dossiê: Pós-verdade, negacionismo e fake news; e0230051982-47181414-014410.52780/res.v28iesp.1reponame:Estudos de Sociologiainstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPporenghttps://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/estudos/article/view/17300/16201https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/estudos/article/view/17300/16202https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/estudos/article/view/17300/16203Copyright (c) 2023 Estudos de Sociologiainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPerini-Santos, Ernesto2023-08-17T20:42:02Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/17300Revistahttp://seer.fclar.unesp.br/estudosPUBhttp://seer.fclar.unesp.br/estudos/oaistraud.fclar@unesp.br||estudosdesociologia@fclar.unesp.br||maria.jardim@unesp.br1982-47181414-0144opendoar:2023-08-17T20:42:02Estudos de Sociologia - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
The social space of doubt: Denialism, skepticism and the construction of knowledge El espacio social de la duda: El negacionismo, el escepticismo y la construcción del conocimiento O espaço social da dúvida: Negacionismo, ceticismo e a construção do conhecimento |
title |
The social space of doubt: Denialism, skepticism and the construction of knowledge |
spellingShingle |
The social space of doubt: Denialism, skepticism and the construction of knowledge Perini-Santos, Ernesto Negacionismo Ceticismo Dúvida Epistemologia Construtivismo Denialism Skepticism Doubts Epistemology Constructivism Negacionismo Escepticismo Duda Epistemología Constructivismo |
title_short |
The social space of doubt: Denialism, skepticism and the construction of knowledge |
title_full |
The social space of doubt: Denialism, skepticism and the construction of knowledge |
title_fullStr |
The social space of doubt: Denialism, skepticism and the construction of knowledge |
title_full_unstemmed |
The social space of doubt: Denialism, skepticism and the construction of knowledge |
title_sort |
The social space of doubt: Denialism, skepticism and the construction of knowledge |
author |
Perini-Santos, Ernesto |
author_facet |
Perini-Santos, Ernesto |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Perini-Santos, Ernesto |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Negacionismo Ceticismo Dúvida Epistemologia Construtivismo Denialism Skepticism Doubts Epistemology Constructivism Negacionismo Escepticismo Duda Epistemología Constructivismo |
topic |
Negacionismo Ceticismo Dúvida Epistemologia Construtivismo Denialism Skepticism Doubts Epistemology Constructivism Negacionismo Escepticismo Duda Epistemología Constructivismo |
description |
It might seem that any restriction on doubting is contrary to the progression of knowledge and undemocratic. This argument is used by different flavors of denialism. However, an examination of the way doubts work shows us that there are epistemic requirements for the legitimacy of doubt that are not met by denialisms. A consequence of this argument is that epistemic normativity is not absorbed by political normativity. The specificity of epistemic normativity, which explains why denialists' doubt is not legitimate, disappears in constructivist theories. Constructivist theses result from a confusion between the fact that theories are social constructs and the thesis that they construct the facts upon which the theory itself stands. The legitimacy of doubt depends on epistemic social filtering processes. Socially constructed epistemic filters reflect a profound fact of the evolution of human culture: the cumulative, social and asymmetrical production of knowledge. |
publishDate |
2023 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2023-08-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/estudos/article/view/17300 10.52780/res.v28iesp.1.17300 |
url |
https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/estudos/article/view/17300 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.52780/res.v28iesp.1.17300 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por eng |
language |
por eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/estudos/article/view/17300/16201 https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/estudos/article/view/17300/16202 https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/estudos/article/view/17300/16203 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2023 Estudos de Sociologia info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2023 Estudos de Sociologia |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
FCL-UNESP Laboratório Editorial |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
FCL-UNESP Laboratório Editorial |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Estudos de Sociologia; (2023), v. 28, n. esp. 1 - Dossiê: Pós-verdade, negacionismo e fake news; e023005 1982-4718 1414-0144 10.52780/res.v28iesp.1 reponame:Estudos de Sociologia instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) instacron:UNESP |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
instacron_str |
UNESP |
institution |
UNESP |
reponame_str |
Estudos de Sociologia |
collection |
Estudos de Sociologia |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Estudos de Sociologia - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
straud.fclar@unesp.br||estudosdesociologia@fclar.unesp.br||maria.jardim@unesp.br |
_version_ |
1800214856096284672 |