How might we seek to negotiate conflicts between differing or competing claims to expertise and knowledge?

Order Instructions

Greetings Everyone! Welcome back to our discussion board – Only two more to go!!

With our exploration of Complaints and Disorders as a starting point, we are now beginning our ‘home stretch of the semester’ – a deep dive exploration of the relationships between forms of expertise and decision-making processes in science, technology, and medicine.

By way of a series of case studies meant to bring these theoretical concerns and questions ‘down to earth,’ we are beginning to see the real and potential tensions that sometimes exist between different experts and between professional experts and ‘non-professional’ experts.

What characterizes an expert in a given area or on a given topic? (Or, if you prefer, what disqualifies one as an expert?)

Are there instances when it is difficult to reach consensus on a claim or series of claims? What might prevent the formation of consensus?

In the STEM sphere broadly speaking, can we think of current or historical examples when claims or arguments come into minor or major conflict – and where one or another claim appears to be more legitimate, more trustworthy, more authoritative, more valid?

How might we seek to negotiate conflicts between differing or competing claims to expertise and knowledge?