‘Civil skepticism’ and the social construction of knowledge: A case in dendroclimatology

Abstract

Early Science and Technology Studies (STS) scholars recognized that the social construction of knowledge depends on skepticism's parasitic relationship to background expectations and trust. Subsequent generations have paid less empirical attention to skepticism in science and its relationship with trust. I seek to rehabilitate skepticism in STS - particularly, Merton's view of skepticism as a scientific norm sustained by trust among status peers - with a study of what I call 'civil skepticism'. The empirical grounding is a case in contemporary dendroclimatology and the development of a method ('Blue Intensity') for generating knowledge about climate change from trees. I present a sequence of four instances of civil skepticism involved in making Blue Intensity more resistant to critique, and hence credible (in laboratory experiments, workshops, conferences, and peer-review of articles). These skeptical interactions depended upon maintaining communal notions of civility among an increasingly extended network of mutually trusted peers through a variety of means: by making Blue Intensity complementary to existing methods used to study a diverse natural world (tree-ring patterns) and by contributing to a shared professional goal (the study of global climate change). I conclude with a sociological theory about the role of civil skepticism in constituting knowledge-claims of greater generality and relevance.

The social media life of climate change: Platforms, publics, and future imaginaries

“…Whatever the reason, more research into the dynamics within and between groups, and the manifestation of these dynamics within Twitter conversations, would be beneficial to increasing our understanding of the role of civility in climate change communication. In particular, there is potential for building on recent research into the links between civility and skepticism to explore the role of social media in fostering or hindering trust within climate change discussions (Ramírez‐i‐Ollé, , ).…”

Trust, scepticism, and social order: A contribution from the sociology of scientific knowledge

“…Whilst the bases of trustworthiness are historically and contextually variable, the recognition of trustworthy and authoritative people is a necessary component in achieving shared agreement among specialists and creating scientific knowledge. Shapin's () study of 17th century English science is the key reference upon which a vast literature about the role of interpersonal trust in different sciences has been built: mathematics (Steingart, ); physics (Collins, ; Knorr Cetina, ; Reyes‐Galindo, ); geography (Withers, ); military technology and computing (MacKenzie, ; MacKenzie & Pottinger, ); aviation (Downer, ); civil engineering (Porter, ); metrology (Gooday, ; Timmermans, ); and climate science (Heymann, ; Ramírez‐i‐Ollé, ).…”

“…The concept of the “core‐set” suggests that, in all fields of science, there is always a small group of individuals who know and trust each other intimately and rely upon each other's expertise to resolve disagreements (Collins, ; Collins, ). Building upon this latter notion, the “theory of the externalisation of trust relations” aims to describe a simultaneous externalisation of knowledge and trust relations: as scientists make claims of greater generality and relevance, they rely on trusted experts who are external to their “core‐set” (Ramírez‐i‐Ollé, ). The study of “taxonomies of trust” has shown the overlap between the intellectual/epistemic distinctions scientists make in their work and other social distinctions (e.g., career stage, employment status, and sources of funding) that determine whom they trust in a team (Knorr Cetina,: 131); the impressionistic notion of the “certainty trough” seeks to represent the different degrees of certainty and trust that arise depending on one's distance from the main site of production of an artefact or a theory (MacKenzie, ; MacKenzie, ); and the concept of “virtual empiricism” provides a finer characterisation of the three levels of social distance (minimal, medium, and maximal) and associated types of trust (interpersonal, institutional, and suspension of doubt) involved in establishing communication and agreement between scientists (Reyes–Galindo, ).…”

“…On the other hand, scepticism and sceptical changes can have positive effects on trust and knowledge in the same way that certain parasites contribute to the survival of their hosts by protecting them from damaging organisms. Consequently, when scepticism is practised within certain accepted bounds of civility and reinforces the standing of a group, it can make trust relations stronger and allow the resulting knowledge to be seen as more objective and credible (a phenomenon that I have characterised as “civil scepticism”; see Ramírez‐i‐Ollé, ).…”

“…Overall, the literatures of agnotology and the sociology of ignorance represent two approaches to the empirical study of the performativity of scepticism and doubt on social life. SSK and other subfields of sociology could benefit from agnotology and the sociology of ignorance in that these new fields examine specific scientific and technical contexts in which the production of scepticism, doubt, and ignorance has effects on social/cognitive order, and hence these fields can contribute to the advancement of the “sociology of scepticism” (Ramírez‐i‐Ollé, ). In turn, these two new lines of scholarship might find in the Parasitic View of Scepticism a way of characterising their distinct analytical focus on doubt and ignorance (“positive/negative parasitism”), and also a way of connecting their work with broader sociological debates about modernity and social order.…”