Global Warming and the Interaction Between the Public and Technical Spheres of Argument: When Standards for Expertise Really Matter

Abstract

This article considers public usurpation of the technical sphere a problematic implication of Goodnight (1982). I argue that in order to protect the roles of the public and technical sphere from duplicitous contestation, interlocutors in the public sphere should apply unique standards to evaluate the authenticity and worth of technical claims advanced in the public sphere. I suggest that the public use three standards to evaluate technical claims under scrutiny. In order for technical claims to be legitimized for public use, the following conditions should be met: (1) Scientific communities should be in consensus. Consensus should guide policy. (2) Scientific communities should not produce research contaminated with motives other than doing the best science. (3) Scientific communities should not be corrupt in conduct. There should not be credible allegations of misconduct against the dominant scientific approach. If the technical claims under scrutiny meet these three standards, then the claims should have presumption in the public sphere and public advocates should consider their use for policymaking. Global warming is a unique example where the claims of the international scientific community have met all three standards, yet skeptics in the public sphere still have argumentative presumption in the debate.