Evidence, Objectivity, Social Policy

This paper is intended to further the discussion on the use and dissemination of 'expert knowledge', and in particular on the relation between the plausibility of scientific discourse and the credibility of the figure of the scientific expert in the domain of policy making and social intervention. An analysis of the concepts of plausibility and credibility cannot be effectively pursued in terms of the traditional discussions on what counts as strict criteria of demarcation between science and pseudo-science (criteria which are indeed notoriously difficult not only to formulate in principle but also, and even more so, to spell out in practice). Such an analysis should instead lead us to rethinking the form as well as ter substance of scientific discourse. To make this possible, it is argued, a multidisciplinary, broad spectrum analysis proves necessary in view of combining, in a resourceful and effective way, diverse and sometimes even heterogeneous methodologies and lines of questioning. This does not detract from the objectivity and transparency of the results we rightly demand of science. It brings us instead to identify a more realistic model of scientific research and of the expectations we build on it