Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

A brief reply to Carson Strong.

Bernard Gert1

  • 1Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.

Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
|October 14, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

This dialogue highlights how unacknowledged factual or semantic disagreements can arise in scientific discourse. The authors aim to reduce such misunderstandings through clear communication and shared definitions.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Neuroscience and morality.

The Hastings Center report·2012
Same author

Computer implants and death.

Reviews in the neurosciences·2010
Same author

Sex, immorality, and mental disorders.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2009
Same author

Core curriculum: research ethics for radiology residents.

Academic radiology·2008
Same author

Matters of "life" and "death".

The Hastings Center report·2006
Same author

Making the morally relevant features explicit: a response to Carson Strong.

Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2006

Area of Science:

  • Philosophy of Science
  • Scientific Communication

Background:

  • Disagreements in scientific discourse can stem from differing interpretations of facts or terminology.
  • Unacknowledged differences can hinder productive scientific dialogue and collaboration.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze the nature of disagreement in a specific scientific exchange.
  • To identify sources of unacknowledged factual and semantic divergence.
  • To propose methods for reducing such disagreements in scientific communication.

Main Methods:

  • Review of a published scientific exchange between authors.
  • Analysis of stated positions and underlying assumptions.
  • Identification of points of factual and terminological contention.
Keywords:
Bioethics and Professional Ethics

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • The exchange revealed unacknowledged disagreements regarding case facts and term meanings.
  • Specific instances of differing interpretations were identified.
  • The dialogue underscored the importance of explicit agreement on foundational elements.

Conclusions:

  • Explicitly addressing and resolving factual and semantic disagreements is crucial for productive scientific dialogue.
  • Clearer communication and shared understanding of terms can prevent and mitigate scientific disputes.
  • This analysis offers insights into improving scientific discourse and collaboration.