Abstract

In this remark to the article by L.V. Shipovalova, doubts are expressed about the thesis about the insolvency of consensus in the conditions of distributed cognition. According to the author, distributed cognition does not imply rejection of consensus, but complements it. Using the example of the problems of technology management and their assessment, as well as the risk situations accompanying them, a more generalized interpretation of consensus is proposed that goes beyond communication in science. In this interpretation, consensus is a dialogue between science and non-science and involves a large number of participants in the absence of a predetermined order or degree of significance of evaluating their arguments. The need to appeal to consensus is justified by the fact that the assessment of consequences and risks is carried out in a situation of epistemological uncertainty. Technology management is lagging, i.e. it is reactive, not projective. It is noted that following the principles of consensus allows you to include a significant amount of available knowledge in the discussion field and prevent undesirable consequences when making decisions. The author emphasizes the normative nature of consensus, which is a requirement for collective decision-making when assessing the consequences of technologies.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call