Does democracy require value-neutral science? Analyzing the legitimacy of scientific information in the political sphere

被引:24
作者
Lusk, Greg [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Michigan State Univ, Lyman Briggs Coll, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
[2] Michigan State Univ, Dept Philosophy, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
来源
STUDIES IN HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE | 2021年 / 90卷
关键词
Political Philosophy of Science; Science and Values; Democracy; Legitimacy; Inductive risk; Climate Change; Science and the Public; Value free ideal; Social values; Non-epistemic values; DEFENSE; POLICY; IDEAL;
D O I
10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.08.009
中图分类号
N09 [自然科学史]; B [哲学、宗教];
学科分类号
01 ; 0101 ; 010108 ; 060207 ; 060305 ; 0712 ;
摘要
Philosophers now commonly reject the value free ideal for science by arguing that non-epistemic values, including personal or social values, are permissible within the core of scientific research. However, little attention has been paid to the normative political consequences of this position. This paper explores these consequences and shows how political theory is fruitful for proceeding in a world without value-neutral science. I draw attention to an oft-overlooked argument employed by proponents of the value free ideal I dub the "political legitimacy argument." This argument claims that the value-free ideal follows directly from the foundational principles of liberal de-mocracy. If so, then the use of value-laden scientific information within democratic decision making would be illegitimate on purely political grounds. Despite highlighting this unaddressed and important argument, I show how it can be rejected. By appealing to deliberative democratic theory, I demonstrate scientific information can be value-laden and politically legitimate. The deliberative democratic account I develop is well suited for capturing the intuitions of many opponents of the value free ideal and points to a new set of questions for those interested in values in science.
引用
收藏
页码:102 / 110
页数:9
相关论文
共 64 条
[1]  
Bachtiger Andre, 2018, The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy
[2]   In defence of the value free ideal [J].
Betz, Gregor .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 2013, 3 (02) :207-220
[3]  
Biddle J. B., 2020, CAN J PHILOS, P1
[4]  
Bodansky D., 2008, The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, P704, DOI DOI 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780199552153.013.0030
[5]  
Bohman John., 1996, Public Deliberation
[6]   Du Bois' democratic defence of the value free ideal [J].
Bright, Liam Kofi .
SYNTHESE, 2018, 195 (05) :2227-2245
[7]  
Brown M., 2017, CURRENT CONTROVERSIE
[8]   Values in Science beyond Underdetermination and Inductive Risk [J].
Brown, Matthew J. .
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 2013, 80 (05) :829-839
[9]   The irreducibility of value-freedom to theory assessment [J].
Bueter, Anke .
STUDIES IN HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 2015, 49 :18-26
[10]   The Error Is in the Gap: Synthesizing Accounts for Societal Values in Science [J].
ChoGlueck, Christopher .
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 2018, 85 (04) :704-725