Max Weber’s ‘Inconvenient Facts’ and Contemporary Studies of Public Science Communication

References

• Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. Translated and edited by M. Ritter. London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., A. Dudo, and S. Yuan. 2017. “Scientists’ Views about Communication Objectives.” Public Understanding of Science 27 (6): 708–730. doi:10.1177/0963662517728478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucchi, M. 2017. “Credibility, Expertise and the Challenges of Science Communication 2.0.” Public Understanding of Science 26 (8): 890–893. doi:10.1177/0963662517733368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucchi, M., and B. Trench, eds. 2008. Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, H. M., and R. J. Evans. 2002. “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience.” Social Studies of Science 32 (2): 235–296. doi:10.1177/0306312702032002003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daston, L., and P. Galison. 2010. Objectivity. New York: Zone Book.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, H. 2004. “The Irreducible Complexity of Objectivity.” Synthese 138 (3): 453–473. doi:10.1023/B:SYNT.0000016451.18182.91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas, H. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R. Ravetz. 1993. “Science for the Post-normal Age.” Future 25 (7): 739–755. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L.
   Google Scholar
• Galison, P. 2015. “The Journalists, the Scientists, and Objectivity.” In Objectivity in Science. New Perspectives from Science and Technology Studies, edited by F. Padovani, A. Richardson, and J. Y. Tsou, 57–75. Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Hacking, I. 2015. “Let’s Not Talk about Objectivity.” In Objectivity in Science. New Perspectives from Science and Technology Studies, edited by F. Padovani, A. Richardson, and J. Y. Tsou, 19–34. Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Harding, S. 1995. “’Strong objectivity’: A Response to the New Objectivity Question.” Synthese 104: 331–349. doi:10.1007/BF01064504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilgartner, S. 1990. “The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses.” Social Studies of Science 20: 519–539. doi:10.1177/030631290020003006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howes, M. 2015. “Objectivity, Intellectual Virtue, and Community.” In Objectivity in Science. New Perspectives from Science and Technology Studies, edited by F. Padovani, A. Richardson, and J. Y. Tsou, 173–188. Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the Wind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Iles, A. 2007. “Identifying Environmental Health Risks in Consumer Products: Non-Governmental Organizations and Civic Epistemology.” Public Understanding of Science 16 (4): 371–391. doi:10.1177/0963662505059442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin, A. 2014. “Risk, Science and Public Communication: Third-Order Thinking about Scientific Culture.” In Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. second ed. edited by M. Bucchi and B. Trench, 160–172. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. 2004. “Science and Citizenship: A New Synergy.” Science and Public Policy 31 (2): 90–94. doi:10.3152/147154304781780064.
   Google Scholar
• John, S. 2018. “Epistemic Trust and the Ethics of Science Communication: Against Transparency, Openness, Sincerity and Honesty.” Social Epistemology 32 (2): 75–87. doi:10.1080/02691728.2017.1410864.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 2004. “Scientific Objects and Legal Objectivity.” In Law, Anthropology, and the Constitution of the Social, edited by A. Pottage and M. Mundy, 73–114. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Law, J. 2016. “STS as Method.” In Handbook on Science and Technology Studies, edited by U. Felt, R. Fouché, C. A. Miller, and L. Smith-Doerr, 31–57. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lyotard, J. F. 1984. The Postmodern Condition. A Report of Knowledge. Translated and edited by G. Bennington and B. Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Megill, A. 1994. “Introduction: Four Senses of Objectivity.” In Rethinking Objectivity, edited by A. Megill, 1–20. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2001. Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nozick, R. 1998. “Invariance and Objectivity.” Proceeding and Addresses of the APA 72: 21–48.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, H. P. 2014. “Scientists as Public Experts: Expectations and Responsibilities.” In Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, edited by M. Bucchi and B. Trench, 70–82. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K. 1976. “The Logic of the Social Sciences.” The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, edited by T. W. Adorno, G. Adey, and D. Frisby, 87–104. London: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, T. M. 1995. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rheinberger, H. J. 1997. Towards a History of Epistemic Things. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rheinberger, H. J. 2000. “Cytoplasmic Particles. The Trajectory of a Scientific Object.” In Biographies of Scientific Objects, edited by L. Daston, 270–294. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Romero, F. 2017. “Novelty versus Replicability: Virtues and Vices in the Reward System of Science.” Philosophy of Science 84 (5): 1031–1043. doi:10.1086/694005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, S. 2009. “Shall We Really Do It Again? The Powerful Concept of Replication Is Neglected in the Social Sciences.” Review of General Psychology 13 (2): 90–100. doi:10.1037/a0015108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sehr, S. H. 2000. “Public Representations of Scientific Uncertainty about Global Climate Change.” Public Understanding of Science 9: 85–103. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/2/301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, S. 2001. “What Is the Problem with Experts?” Social Studies of Science 31 (1): 123–149. doi:10.1177/030631201031001007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, M. 2004. “Science as a Vocation.” The Vocation Lectures, edited by D. Owen, T. B. Strong, and R. Livingstone, 1–31. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, J. 2018. “Rescuing Objectivity: A Contextualist Proposal.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 48 (4): 384–406. doi:10.1177/0048393118767089.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. 1989. “Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: A Case Study in Communicating Scientific Information.” Environment 31 (2): 10–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziman, J. 2000. Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar