Везде
Expert and Layman: Communicative Paradoxes of Expertise and Counter-Expertise
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Expert and Layman: Communicative Paradoxes of Expertise and Counter-Expertise
Annotation
PII
S1811-833X0000616-7-1
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Vladimir Kiselev  Elena V. Bryzgalina
Edition
Volume 57 Issue 2
Pages
33-41
Abstract
The article substantiates the possibility of interpreting expertise as a research communicative practice, in contrast to the expert “comparison with the sample”. Inside the so-called examinations, a counter-examination is institutionally integrated. The communication of expert and counter-expert position, which is a phenomenological personality choice, can take a form of personal institutionalized communication, and can be mediated by mediators and media texts. The results of examination and counter-interaction are determined by many factors, among which the coincidence (mismatch) of the images of the future. Communication between a layman and an expert about science-dimensional situations can be considered in prism of various optics – linguistic, sociological, socio-political, psychological optics, fixing a number of several paradoxes (equality, limited choice, excess / deficit).
Keywords
expertise, counter-expertise, “layman’s knowledge”, communication paradoxes
Date of publication
01.06.2020
Number of purchasers
22
Views
576
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf

References



Additional sources and materials

    

  1. Bryzgalina, E.V., Alasaniya, K.Yu., Sadovnichiy, V.A. „Social`no-gumanitarnaya e`kspertiza funkcionirovaniya nacional`ny`x depozitariev biomaterialov” [The Social and Humanitarian Expertise of Functioning of the National Depositaries of Biomaterials], Voprosy filosofii, 2016, no. 2, pp. 8‒21.
    2. 

  2. Tishhenko, P.D. Na granyax zhizni i smerti: filosofskie issledovaniya osnovanij bioetiki [On the Verge of Life and Death: Philosophical Investigations of the Foundations of Bioethics]. Saint Petersburg: Mir, 2011, 331 pp.
    3. 

  3. Harre, R. „Gibridnaya psikhologiya: soyuz diskurs-analiza s neironaukoy” [Hybrid Psycholology: A Tandem of Discourse-Analysis with Neuroscience], Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2005, no. 4, pp. 38‒63. (In Russian)
    4. 

  4. Dementyev, V.V. Nepryamaya kommunikaciya [Indirect Communication]. Moscow: Gnozis, 2006, 376 pp.
    5. 

  5. Sidorenko, L.I. „Metodologicheskoe izmerenie etosa postneklassicheskogo biologicheskogo issledovaniya” [Methodological Dimension of the Ethos of Post-neoclassical Biological Research], Filosofiya nauki i tekhniki – Philosophy of Science and Technology, 2005, no. 1, pp. 280‒289.
    6.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate