ABSTRACT
This chapter presents a heuristic on how to distinguish between three modes of contestation of scientific evidence, knowledge and expertise in knowledge societies. The first mode of contestation questions the validity and reliability of scientific knowledge; the second one raises doubts that the specific scientific expertise is adequate for solving the political problem at hand; and the third one criticizes the scientific field's exposed position in matters of decision- and policy-making and administrative processes. The three forms of contestation have different effects on the recognition of science. In the first mode, scientific evidence is problematized. In the second mode, its political framing and usage is questioned, without denying the role of scientific evidence in political and administrative decision-making in principle. In the third mode, the relevance of scientific evidence for political decision-making is questioned.
