Objectivity, trust and social responsibility

被引:0
作者
Kristina H. Rolin
机构
[1] University of Helsinki,Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies
[2] Tampere University,Faculty of Social Sciences
来源
Synthese | 2021年 / 199卷
关键词
Objectivity; Trust; Trustworthiness; Socially responsible science; Values in science; Philip Kitcher; James Fishkin; Anna Alexandrova;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
I examine ramifications of the widespread view that scientific objectivity gives us a permission to trust scientific knowledge claims. According to a widely accepted account of trust and trustworthiness, trust in scientific knowledge claims involves both reliance on the claims and trust in scientists who present the claims, and trustworthiness depends on expertise, honesty, and social responsibility. Given this account, scientific objectivity turns out to be a hybrid concept with both an epistemic and a moral-political dimension. The epistemic dimension tells us when scientific knowledge claims are reliable, and the moral-political dimension tells us when we can trust scientists to be socially responsible. While the former dimension has received a fair amount of attention, the latter is in need of analysis. I examine what it means for scientists to be socially responsible, that is, to follow “sound” moral and social values in different stages of scientific inquiry (Kourany in Philosophy of science after feminism, Oxford University Press, New York, 2010). Social responsibility is especially important when scientists function as experts in society. Members of the public and policymakers do not want to rely on scientific research shaped by moral and social values they have good reasons to reject. Moreover, social responsibility is important in social research in which moral and social values can legitimately play many roles. I discuss the strengths and weaknesses of different answers to the question of how social scientists can identify appropriate moral and social values to inform their research. I argue that procedural accounts of social responsibility, such as well-ordered science and deliberative polling, have limitations.
引用
收藏
页码:513 / 533
页数:20
相关论文
共 41 条
[11]  
Dotson K(2017)Different motivations, similar proposals: Objectivity in scientific community and democratic science policy Synthese 194 4657-4669
[12]  
Eigi J(2011)Direct and indirect roles for values in science Philosophy of Science 78 303-324
[13]  
Elliott K(2005)A general theory of scientific/intellectual movements American Sociological Review 70 204-232
[14]  
Frickel S(2013)Moral trust and scientific collaboration Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 301-310
[15]  
Gross N(2001)Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 85-109
[16]  
Frost-Arnold K(2010)Scientific and lay communities: Earning epistemic trust through knowledge sharing Synthese 177 387-409
[17]  
Goldman A(1985)Epistemic dependence Journal of Philosophy 82 335-349
[18]  
Grasswick H(1991)The role of trust in knowledge Journal of Philosophy 88 693-708
[19]  
Hardwig J(2011)On the ideal of autonomous science Philosophy of Science 78 1235-1248
[20]  
Hardwig J(2015)Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate values in climate modeling European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5 217-232