Scepticism and the science of global warming: a rejoinder

An adequate epistemology of science will not, as some Old Deferentialists expected [pre-Kuhnian thinkers who held that science progresses by the accumulation of well-confirmed truths], be exclusively logical, but will have a social dimension. Unlike the New Cynicism [of post-Kuhnian critics who write about science with factitious despair], however, it will not see the fact that science is a social enterprise as illegitimating its epistemic pretensions, but as an important factor contributing to its epistemic distinction; not as a reason for favoring the notion of acceptance and neglecting warrant, but as an important factor helping to keep warrant and acceptance appropriately correlated. Puzzling out science, Susan Haack (1995, p. 27). This paper is a rejoinder to the three forum pieces stimulated by our original article in this journal: ‘Scepticism and doubt in science and science education: the complexity of global warming as a socio-scientific issue’ (Bryce and Day 2014).