05699oam 2200793 c 450 991097822770332120260102090118.09783839465806383946580X10.1515/9783839465806(MiAaPQ)EBC7286445(CKB)28162959500041(Au-PeEL)EBL7286445(DE-B1597)644562(DE-B1597)9783839465806(Perlego)3784301(transcript Verlag)9783839465806(EXLCZ)992816295950004120260102d2023 uy 0engurcnu||||||||txtrdacontentcrdamediacrrdacarrierA Heated DebateMeta-Theoretical Studies on Current Climate Research and Public Understanding of ScienceMaria M. Sojka1st ed.Bielefeldtranscript Verlag20231 online resource (228 pages)Edition Moderne Postmoderne9783837665802 Includes bibliographical references.Cover -- Contents -- List of Abbreviations -- List of Figures -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Some preliminary remarks -- 2.1 Epistemic challenges of highly complex systems -- 2.2 Discovery and justification: the DJ distinction -- 2.3 A few words about objectivity -- 3. Three ideals of science -- 3.1 Value‐free science -- 3.1.1 Introduction: values in science -- 3.1.1.1 The rise and fall of the value‐free ideal -- 3.1.1.2 Epistemic versus non‐epistemic values -- 3.1.2 Inductive risks and social values -- 3.1.2.1 Social values and methodological considerations -- 3.1.3 Social values in climate science -- 3.1.3.1 Unconstrained decision making, predictive preferences andcostrestrictions -- 3.1.3.2 Non‐traceability -- 3.1.3.3 Coarser uncertainty quantification and other possiblecounterarguments -- 3.1.3.4 Systematic bias and wishful thinking -- 3.1.4 Conclusion -- 3.2 Model, theory and observation -- 3.2.1 Introduction: from handmaiden to a life of their own -- 3.2.1.2 Observation -- 3.2.2 Theory‐ladenness, underdetermination and models of data -- 3.2.2.1 Models of data -- 3.2.3 Observations in climate science -- 3.2.3.1 Climate data -- 3.2.3.1.1 Observations and uncertainties -- 3.2.3.1.2 Satellite data -- 3.2.3.1.3 Paleoclimate data and proxies -- 3.2.3.1.4 Reanalysis data -- 3.2.3.2 Model‐data interdependency -- 3.2.3.3 Verification and validation -- 3.2.4 Conclusion -- 3.3 Predictability -- 3.3.1 Introduction: predictability and uncertainty -- 3.3.2 Robustness -- 3.3.3 Uncertainties in climate science -- 3.3.3.1 Numerical approximation and structural uncertainty -- 3.3.3.2 Parameter uncertainty -- 3.3.3.3 Second‐order uncertainty -- 3.3.3.3.1 Ensemble studies -- 3.3.3.3.2 The quantification problem -- 3.3.3.4 Robustness revisited -- 3.3.4 Conclusion -- 3.4 Looking back and a tentative look forward -- 3.4.1 Complexity and understanding.3.4.2 Discovery and justification -- 3.4.3 Scientific objectivity -- 3.4.4 Conclusion: what now? -- 4. Tacit knowledge, skill and expertise -- 4.1 Tacit knowledge -- 4.1.1 Michael Polanyi: tacit knowledge -- 4.1.2 Gilbert Ryle: knowing how and knowing that -- 4.1.3 Harry Collins: a taxonomy of tacit knowledge -- 4.1.3.1 Relational Tacit Knowledge -- 4.1.3.2 Somatic Tacit Knowledge -- 4.1.3.3 Collective Tacit Knowledge -- 4.2 Tacit knowledge in climate science -- 1.2.1 Connection between tacit knowledge and expertise -- 4.2.2 Climate modelling as engineering or craft -- 4.3 Conclusion: expertise through experience -- 2. Concluding remarks -- 5.1 Where to go from here? -- 5.1.1 Philosophy of science -- 5.1.2 Science -- 5.1.3 Public -- References -- Acknowledgment.Ever since climate change has been identified as one of the most significant challenges of humanity, climate change deniers have repeatedly tried to discredit the work of scientists. To show how these processes work, Maria M. Sojka examines three ideals about how science should operate. These ideals concern the understanding of uncertainties, the relationship between models and data, and the role of values in science. Their widespread presence in the public understanding of science makes it easy for political and industrial stakeholders to undermine inconvenient research. To address this issue, Sojka analyses the importance of tacit knowledge in scientific practice and the question of what defines an expert.Edition Moderne Postmoderne.Sojka, A Heated DebateMeta-Theoretical Studies on Current Climate Research and Public Understanding of SciencePhilosophy of ScienceClimate ScienceTacit KnowledgeComputer SimulationsExpertiseScienceNatureSocietyEpistemologyPhilosophy of NatureAnalytical PhilosophyPhilosophyPhilosophy of ScienceClimate ScienceTacit KnowledgeComputer SimulationsExpertiseScienceNatureSocietyEpistemologyPhilosophy of NatureAnalytical PhilosophyPhilosophy363.73874Sojka Maria M<p>Maria M. Sojka, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Deutschland</p>aut1887478MiAaPQMiAaPQMiAaPQBOOK9910978227703321A Heated Debate4524337UNINA