An epistemology for democratic citizen science

被引:4
作者
Jaeger, Johannes [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ]
Masselot, Camille [2 ,3 ]
Greshake Tzovaras, Bastian [2 ,3 ]
Senabre Hidalgo, Enric [2 ,3 ,6 ]
Haklay, Mordechai [7 ]
Santolini, Marc [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Complex Sci Hub CSH Vienna, Josefstadter Str 39, A-1080 Vienna, Austria
[2] Univ Paris Cite, Inserm, Syst Engn & Evolut Dynam, F-75004 Paris, France
[3] Univ Paris, Learning Planet Inst, 8 Bis Rue Charles V, F-75004 Paris, France
[4] Inst Etud Avancees Paris, 17 quai Anjou, F-75004 Paris, France
[5] Univ Paris Saclay, 3 rue Joliot Curie, F-91190 Gif Sur Yvette, France
[6] Univ Oberta Catalunya, Rambla Poblenou 156, Barcelona 08018, Spain
[7] UCL, Dept Geog, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT, England
来源
ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE | 2023年 / 10卷 / 11期
关键词
citizen science; epistemology; perspectival realism; process thinking; deliberative practice; project assessment;
D O I
10.1098/rsos.231100
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
More than ever, humanity relies on robust scientific knowledge of the world and our place within it. Unfortunately, our contemporary view of science is still suffused with outdated ideas about scientific knowledge production based on a naive kind of realism. These ideas persist among members of the public and scientists alike. They contribute to an ultra-competitive system of academic research, which sacrifices long-term productivity through an excessive obsession with short-term efficiency. Efforts to diversify this system come from a movement called democratic citizen science, which can serve as a model for scientific inquiry in general. Democratic citizen science requires an alternative theory of knowledge with a focus on the role that diversity plays in the process of discovery. Here, we present such an epistemology, based on three central philosophical pillars: perspectival realism, a naturalistic process-based epistemology, and deliberative social practices. They broaden our focus from immediate research outcomes towards cognitive and social processes which facilitate sustainable long-term productivity and scientific innovation. This marks a shift from an industrial to an ecological vision of how scientific research should be done, and how it should be assessed. At the core of this vision are research communities that are diverse, representative, and democratic.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 80 条
  • [1] Anderson R.Lanier., 2017, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2001, Godel's Proof
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2015, Failure: why Science is so successful
  • [4] Bai H., 2020, Filosofija. Sociologija, V31, P3, DOI [10.6001/fil-soc.v31i3.4269, DOI 10.6001/FIL-SOC.V31I3.4269]
  • [5] Barseghyan H, 2018, Introduction to History and Philosophy of Science
  • [6] SHOULD WE AIM FOR CONSENSUS?
    Beatty, John
    Moore, Alfred
    [J]. EPISTEME-A JOURNAL OF INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL EPISTEMOLOGY, 2010, 7 (03): : 198 - 214
  • [7] Bernstein R.J., 1989, Proceedings and Addresses of the APA, V63, P5, DOI [DOI 10.2307/3130079, 10.2307/3130079]
  • [8] Bhaskar R., 1975, REALIST THEORY SCI
  • [9] Bone Z., 2006, Deliberation forums: a pathway for public participation
  • [10] Chappell Sophie-Grace., 2021, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy