Distributing epistemic and practical risks: a comparative study of communicating earthquake damages

Area of Science:

• Philosophy of Science
• Science Communication
• Risk Assessment

Background:

• Scientific communication involves epistemic and practical uncertainties, especially when addressing non-epistemic missions.
• Advisory knowledge claims, particularly in areas like earthquake damage, require careful consideration of multiple factors.

Purpose of the Study:

• To propose a minimal normative account of science communication.
• To argue for the joint role of openness to epistemic plurality and social responsiveness in scientific communication.
• To demonstrate how these values reduce epistemic and practical risks.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical argumentation.
• Analysis of scientific communication in advisory contexts.
• Use of four illustrative vignettes to explore different scenarios.

Main Results:

• Openness to epistemic plurality reduces the risk of prematurely excluding alternative explanations and supports diverse knowledge sources.
• Social responsiveness minimizes the risk of self-defeating claims and wishful thinking by balancing competing values.
• Both values collectively enhance the epistemic and practical success of advisory scientific communication.

Conclusions:

• Integrating epistemic plurality and social responsiveness is crucial for scientists acting as communicators.
• A minimal normative framework for science communication emphasizes these dual values.
• Adopting these values improves the trustworthiness and utility of scientific advice in complex situations.