Uncertainty as Symbolic Action in Disputes Among Experts

Abstract

Uncertainty in disputes among experts in the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry is examined as symbolic action — that is, for the part that claims concerning the amount of knowledge play in expert debates. It is shown that scientists as experts vary systematically in the arguments they make concerning the amount of knowledge with, in this case, `critics' stating that there is uncertainty and `defenders' making claims for adequate knowledge. The credibility of expert claims concerning the amount of knowledge is demonstrated and explored. The theoretical and methodological importance of the analysis of symbolic action for the political sociology of science is suggested.