This book explores the relationship between science and democracy from an STS perspective. Through the focus on the interplay between science and politics and the role of participation when it comes to highly expert-dependent issues, the book contributes important insights into the relation between science and democracy. The book also introduces STS as a field of research and presents an overview of classical and current STS scholarship and debates with a special focus on science (...) and democracy. The main argument is that science and democracy belong together - they are co-produced - and are separate. The book takes the reader on a journey that starts by emphasizing the differences between science and democracy and then introduces their similarities and interdependencies. The journey goes through three parts: separation, overlap, and co-production. The book concludes by summarizing specific contributions of STS research to the discussion of science and democracy, based on four themes: representation and participation; separation and hybridization; situated practices and democratic theory; and STS and normativity.This accessible book introduces students to perspectives from the field of science and technology studies.Putting forward the thesis that science and democracy share important characteristics, it shows how authority cannot be taken for granted and must continuously be reproduced and confirmed by others. At a time when fundamental scientific and democratic values are being threatened by sceptics and populist arguments, an understanding of the relationship between them is much needed.This is an invaluable resource for all who are interested in the role of scientific knowledge in governance, societal developments and the implications for democracy and concerned publics and citizen engagement.An invaluable resource to help understand the role of scientific knowledge in governance, societal developments and democracy, this accessible book introduces students to perspectives from the field of science and technology studies. (shrink)

Title descriptionThe relationship between science and democracy has become a much-debated issue. In recent years, we have even seen an exponential growth in literature on the subject. No doubt, the interest has partly been justified by the concern of public opinion over the technological repercussions of scientific research. Moreover, there are scientific theories that, if they were accepted, would allegedly imply the adoption of policies that have wide social consequences, as well as a rethinking of deeply-rooted habits on (...) the part of the citizens. These considerations alone allow us to understand the reasons for the interest in the, at times troublesome, relationships between science and public opinion which characterize democratic societies.Short descriptionThe relationship between science and democracy has become a much-debated issue. This volume explains the reasons for the interest in this, at times troublesome, relationships between science and public opinion which characterize democratic societies. (shrink)

In the life sciences and beyond, new developments in science and technology and the creation of new social orders go hand in hand. In short, science and society are simultaneously and reciprocally coproduced and changed. Scientific research not only produces new knowledge and technological systems but also constitutes new forms of expertise and contributes to the emergence of new modes of living, at times empowering and at times disempowering citizens. These dynamic processes are tightly connected to significant redistributions (...) of wealth and power, and they sometimes threaten and sometimes enhance democracy. Understanding this phenomenon poses important intellectual and normative challenges: neither traditional social sciences nor prevailing modes of democratic governance have fully grappled with the deep and growing significance of knowledge-making in twenty-first century politics. Building on new work in science and technology studies (STS), this book advances the systematic analysis of the coproduction of knowledge and power in contemporary societies. Using case studies in the new life sciences, supplemented with cases on informatics and other topics such as climate science, this book presents a theoretical framing of coproduction processes while also providing detailed empirical analyses and nuanced comparative work. It will be interesting for students of sociology, science and technology studies, the history of science, genetics, political science and public administration. (shrink)

We have seen why the moral responsibility of science is inevitable. However, society taken as a whole collaborates with science: scientists and ordinary citizens are members of a single community of inquiry, whose aim is the truth. After examining the features of a ‘perfectionist’ democracy, I will clarify why it does not represent a utopian ideal by examining the role and characteristics of both experts and public opinion. We will appreciate how science and society are both (...) fragmented and subject to variable alliances. Finally, we will see the differences between this and other conceptions of the relationship between science and democracy. In this context, the essential role of the concept of truth will be confirmed. (shrink)

The article analyses the relationship between science and democracy on basis of a very specific point of view. Three arguments are put forward to defend that. In its historical origin, in its linguistic roots and in its institutional basis, science is (and continues to be) a democratic endeavor. The article very briefly discusses the decisive changings in the relation between science and political, economic and military power that took place during the XX century and stresses the (...) cognitive relevance of a set of universal institutions which, all along the history of science, provide the conditions of possibility for science to exist and develop. Finally, even if today those universal institutions face big transformations, the possibility for science to remain a free democratic endeavor is questioned and argued. (shrink)

Over the past few decades, significant advances have been made in public engagement with, and the democratization of, science and technology. Despite notable successes, such developments have often struggled to enhance public trust, avert crises of expertise and democracy, and build more socially responsive and responsible science and innovation. A central reason for this is that mainstream approaches to public engagement harbor what we call “residual realist” assumptions about participation and publics. Recent coproductionist accounts in science (...) and technology studies offer an alternative way of seeing participation as coproduced, relational, diverse, and emergent but have been somewhat reluctant to articulate what this means in practice. In this paper, we make this move by setting out a new framework of interrelating paths and associated criteria for remaking public participation with science and democracy in more experimental, reflexive, anticipatory, and responsible ways. This framework comprises four paths to: forge reflexive participatory practices that attend to their framings, emergence, uncertainties, and effects; ecologize participation through attending to the interrelations between diverse public engagements in wider systems; catalyze practices of anticipatory reflection to bring about responsible democratic innovations; and reconstitute participation as constitutive of systems of technoscience and democracy. (shrink)

The relationship between science and democracy has been an interesting and important issue in the study of philosophy as well as political science. Democracy does not only apply in the political realm but can also be seen in the context of science. This paper uses a political-philosophical approach to explore the relationship between science and democracy from the perspective of Philip Kitcher. As far as the philosophical research model used in this research is (...) the concept of figure thinking by using primary sources in the form of Philip Kitcher's two main works among other works, namely: Kitcher's Science, Truth, and Democracy (2001) and Science in a Democratic Society (2011), as well as secondary sources such as books, journal articles and sources relevant to the concepts of the relationship between science and democracy. This paper concludes that the relationship between science and democracy according to Kitcher is based on the concept of a partnership model. This model emphasizes that scientists should consider how knowledge can be applied in a social and practical context, as well as enabling the active participation of the public democratically in the process of scientific research. The relationship between science and democracy, according to Kitcher, relates to the epistemological and socio-practical significance to be taken into account in scientific decision-making, as well as taking into account the public perspective in decision-making. In Kitcher’s perspective too, integration between science and democracy became essential to forming a normative framework for more transparent, democratic scientific research, and producing high-quality knowledge. (shrink)

Mid-Twentieth Century declarations characterizing science as a 'Little democracy' and as autonomous from society continue to shape the arguments of scientists' and critics of science studies, including Meera Nanda's arguments. Yet such an image of science has long lost whatever empirical support it ever posessed. This article shares Nanda's concern to envision sciences which support social justice projects, but not the particular criticisms she makes of Feminist, post-colonial, and post-kuhnian science studies.

Thinking about Western sciences has always also meant making assumptions about modernity and about democratic social relations. Yet in recent decades the standard meanings and referents of all three of these terms—”Western sciences,” “modernity,” and “democratic social relations”—have come under skeptical scrutiny. This essay will look at three critics of modernity who also examine the political practices and consequences of Western sciences. All three also think postmodernisms to be valuable but merely symptomologies without useful prescriptions for change, and they all (...) propose specific strategies for transforming modern sciences into ones that are empirically more effective and politically more accountable. These are Bruno Latour, Ulrich Beck, and Ashis Nandy. Yet these otherwise valuable accounts each have serious shortcomings which create obstacles to the intellectual and political success of their projects. Here I focus on one such limitation: their blindness to the gendering of science and of modernity. (shrink)

In this book, the contributors present an overview of recent developments in philosophy of science by providing a collection of articles that together constitute a systematic and comprehensive investigation of how to understand the relation between the social sciences and democracy.

This volume, modeled after those published in The Library of Living Philosophers, attempts to provide a coherent statement of the work of Abraham Edel in moral and political theory, and on the impact of his work on such diverse areas as education, law, and social science. The methodological element of Edel's work is to see ethical and social theory in the full context of human life; specifically how twentieth-century modes of analysis impact classical concerns about right and wrong, good (...) and evil. The volume is tightly integrated from start to finish, and has the benefit of Edel's thoughtful and thoroughgoing response to critics. In short, while this work is a tribute to the work of a scholar, it aims to serve as a basic guide through the labyrinthian world of contemporary ethical theory and social practice. Contents: Beryl Harold Levy, "Reflective Culture as Philosophy of Law"; Betty A. Sichel, "Abraham Edel's Contribution to Philosophy of Education"; Gerald E. Myers, "Person and Personality--and Respect for Both"; Mihailo Markovic, "Abraham Edel on the Method of Ethical Theory"; Helen Block Lewis, "Consequences for Ethical Theory of a Focus on the Psychology of Shame and Guilt"; Edmund L. Pincoffs, "Ethics as an Explanatory Undertaking"; Standish Thayer, "The Network of Concepts: A New View of Aristotle"; Mortimer R. Kadish, "Abraham Edel and the Dream of Science"; Michael Levin, "Reflections on Non-Cognitivism"; Ralph W. Sleeper, "Naturalizing Legal Positivism"; Irving Louis Horowitz, "The Political Philosophy of Abraham Edel"; Finbarr W. O'Connor, "Network Analysis in Ethics"; Elizabeth Flower, "A Moral Agenda for Ethical Theory"; Abraham Edel, "Responses to Critics"; "An Edel Bibliography.". (shrink)

This volume, modeled after those published in The Library of Living Philosophers, attempts to provide a coherent statement of the work of Abraham Edel in moral and political theory, and on the impact of his work on such diverse areas as education, law, and social science. The methodological element of Edel's work is to see ethical and social theory in the full context of human life; specifically how twentieth-century modes of analysis impact classical concerns about right and wrong, good (...) and evil. The volume is tightly integrated from start to finish, and has the benefit of Edel's thoughtful and thoroughgoing response to critics. In short, while this work is a tribute to the work of a scholar, it aims to serve as a basic guide through the labyrinthian world of contemporary ethical theory and social practice. Contents: Beryl Harold Levy, "Reflective Culture as Philosophy of Law"; Betty A. Sichel, "Abraham Edel's Contribution to Philosophy of Education"; Gerald E. Myers, "Person and Personality--and Respect for Both"; Mihailo Markovic, "Abraham Edel on the Method of Ethical Theory"; Helen Block Lewis, "Consequences for Ethical Theory of a Focus on the Psychology of Shame and Guilt"; Edmund L. Pincoffs, "Ethics as an Explanatory Undertaking"; Standish Thayer, "The Network of Concepts: A New View of Aristotle"; Mortimer R. Kadish, "Abraham Edel and the Dream of Science"; Michael Levin, "Reflections on Non-Cognitivism"; Ralph W. Sleeper, "Naturalizing Legal Positivism"; Irving Louis Horowitz, "The Political Philosophy of Abraham Edel"; Finbarr W. O'Connor, "Network Analysis in Ethics"; Elizabeth Flower, "A Moral Agenda for Ethical Theory"; Abraham Edel, "Responses to Critics"; "An Edel Bibliography.". (shrink)

Mauro Dorato charts pressing debates within the philosophy of science that centre around scientific expertise, access to knowledge, consensus, debate, and decision-making. This English-language translation of Disinformazione Scientifica e Democrazia argues that the advancement of science depends on an exponential process of specialization, accompanied by the creation of technical languages that are less and less accessible to the general public. Dorato reveals how such a process must align with representative forms of democracies, in which knowledge and decision-making ought (...) to aim at the society's general interest. Given the importance of the principle of competence, however, the role of experts as mediators of knowledge threatens the citizens' autonomy of choice. Consequently, the risk of technocratic regimes calls for new ways to increase literacy about science and its philosophical and probabilistic foundations. Stressing the conceptual conflict between pluralism and conformism, Science and Representative Democracyreveals the obstacles to the functioning of both science and democracy. (shrink)

In Democracy in America, de Tocqueville makes two claims about scientific inquiry in democracies: first, that in the abstract there is nothing essential about democracies that prevents them from achieving in science; and second, that in practice democracies will bend science toward practical applications. This paper will examine the nature of the compatibility of science with democracy within a literature roughly called ‘liberal social thought’, using de Tocqueville's claims as an organizing principle. In assessing the (...) first claim, the paper identifies three tensions between science and democracy—the populist, the plutocratic, and the exclusionary—the last of which is an essential tension, as it is grounded in the exclusionary nature of the rationality common to both science and liberal democracy. If one rejects the rationality of scientific inquiry, one risks being excluded from political inquiry and political rights. In assessing the second claim, the paper views the professionalization of science and the idea of a ‘republic of science’ as embodying the exclusionary tension and thus as being undemocratic. The exclusionary tension underlies many current conflicts in science and democratic governance. (shrink)

This essay argues that important development and natural resource management initiatives that seek to expand meaningful participation by rural communities directly affected by such ventures can be usefully examined as democratic technologies. Drawing upon nearly two decades of experience designing, implementing, and researching forest co-management programs in India, the essay examines the analogous practices through which democracy and forest management science become contested regulatory ideals while creating the deliberative spaces in which post-Habermasian public spheres can be constructed. The (...) analysis of disciplinary tendencies, bureaucratic transition, and emerging solidarities among historically marginalised groups responding to the performance of democracy and scientific forest management is used to offer revisions to the more sweeping critiques of technology as fundamentally anti-democratic. (shrink)

In Science, Truth, and Democracy, Philip Kitcher develops the notion of well-ordered science: scientific inquiry whose research agenda and applications are subject to public control guided by democratic deliberation. Kitcher's primary departure from his earlier views involves rejecting the idea that there is any single standard of scientific significance. The context-dependence of scientific significance opens up many normative issues to philosophical investigation and to resolution through democratic processes. Although some readers will feel Kitcher has not moved far (...) enough from earlier epistemological positions, the book does represent an important addition to literature on science, society, and values. (shrink)

Democracy has been a flawed hegemony since the fall of communism. Its flexibility, its commitment to equality of representation, and its recognition of the legitimacy of opposition politics are all positive features for political institutions. But democracy has many deficiencies: it is all too easily held hostage by powerful interests; it often fails to advance social justice; and it does not cope well with a number of features of the political landscape, such as political identities, boundary disputes, and (...) environmental crises. Although democracy is valuable it fits uneasily with other political values and is in many respects less than equal to the demands it confronts. In this volume prominent political theorists and social scientists present original discussions of such central issues. Democracy's Values deals with the nature and value of democracy, particularly the tensions between it and such goods as justice, equality, efficiency, and freedom. (shrink)

In this paper we critically review recent developments in policies, practices and philosophies pertaining to the mediation between science and the public within the EU and the UK, focusing in particular on the current paradigm of Public Understanding of Science and Technology (PEST) which seeks to depart from the science information-transmission associated with previous paradigms, and enact a deliberative democracy model. We first outline the features of the current crisis in democracy and discuss deliberative (...) class='Hi'>democracy as a response to this crisis. We then map out and critically review the broad outlines of recent policy developments in public-science mediation in the EU and UK contexts, focusing on the shift towards the deliberative-democratic model. We conclude with some critical thoughts on the complex interrelationships between democracy, equality, science and informal pedagogies in public-science mediations. We argue that science and democracy operate within distinct value-spheres that are not necessarily consonant with each other. We also problematize the now common dismissal of information-transmission of science as inimical to democratic engagement, and argue for a reassessment of the role and importance of informal science learning for the lay public, provided within the framework of a deliberative democracy that is not reducible to consensus building or the mere expression of opinions rooted in social and cultural givens. This, we argue, can be delivered by a model of PEST that is creative and experimental, with both educational and democratic functions. (shrink)

Up to now Chinese academia has been addicted to inviting the twin goddesses of democracy and science, but has regrettably ignored the innate incongruity between them, which has led to the rise of scientism. May 4th pioneers first introduced this value system, but tension between these values subsequently led to a prevailing preference for science over freedom. The early Marxists defined freedom as obedience to social laws formulated in Marxist ‘science’, while Maoism finalized the Sinicization of (...) Marxism with a belief in iron‐bound social laws and in human beings as mere political means, mercilessly suppressing any expression of free will. (shrink)

2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. No part of this book may... ISBN 978-0-262-01324-6 (hardcover : alk. paper)— ISBN 978-0-262 -51304-3 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Science— Political aspects. 2. Science and state. 3.

The European Legacy, Volume 17, Issue 4, Page 554-557, July 2012.

Defending the role that science must play in democratic society--science defined not just in terms of technology but as a way of approaching problems and viewing the world. In this collection of original essays, experts in political science, the hard sciences, philosophy, history, and other disciplines examine contemporary anti-science trends, and make a strong case that respect for science is essential for a healthy democracy. The editors note that a contradiction lies at the heart (...) of modern society. On the one hand, we inhabit a world increasingly dominated by science and technology. On the other, opposition to science is prevalent in many forms--from arguments against the teaching of evolution and the denial of climate change to the promotion of alternative medicine and outlandish claims about the effects of vaccinations. Adding to this grass-roots hostility toward science are academics espousing postmodern relativism, which equates the methods of science with regimes of "power-knowledge." While these cultural trends are sometimes marketed in the name of "democratic pluralism," the contributors contend that such views are actually destructive of a broader culture appropriate for a democratic society. This is especially true when facts are degraded as "fake news" and scientists are dismissed as elitists. Rather than enhancing the capacity for rational debate and critical discourse, the authors view such anti-science stances on either the right or the left as a return to premodern forms of subservience to authority and an unwillingness to submit beliefs to rational scrutiny. Beyond critiquing attitudes hostile to science, the essays in this collection put forward a positive vision for how we might better articulate the relation between science and democracy and the benefits that accrue from cultivating this relationship. (shrink)

Striving to boldly redirect the philosophy of science, this book by renowned philosopher Philip Kitcher examines the heated debate surrounding the role of science in shaping our lives. Kitcher explores the sharp divide between those who believe that the pursuit of scientific knowledge is always valuable and necessary--the purists--and those who believe that it invariably serves the interests of people in positions of power. In a daring turn, he rejects both perspectives, working out a more realistic image of (...) the sciences--one that allows for the possibility of scientific truth, but nonetheless permits social consensus to determine which avenues to investigate. He then proposes a democratic and deliberative framework for responsible scientists to follow. Controversial, powerful, yet engaging, this volume will appeal to a wide range of readers. Kitcher's nuanced analysis and authorititative conclusion will interest countless scientists as well as all readers of science--scholars and laypersons alike. (shrink)

Science and scientific institutions are not necessarily passive players in the power and manipulation games which constitute democratic elections. In this paper, I shall present a seeming paradox, in which a party well-aligned with science is vulnerable to attack which claims access to alternative and superior science. The argument is demonstrated by the Israeli elections of 1981, won by a party which presented the public with a Perpetuum Mobile, two days before the elections. My analysis, indebted to (...) Hans Jonas’s model of interregnums of values and norms, seems to justify this maneuver and render it rational, in a sense restricted to election campaigns. The analysis was used to predict the victory of Donald Trump in the US elections of 2016. (shrink)

This book deals with the issue of integrating science into democratic decision-making, emphasizing the need to balance the epistemic qualities of science with democratic values. The central question is not whether to rely on science, but how to do so effectively without undermining democratic principles or scientific integrity. The work criticizes the traditional Weberian division of labor, which separates the roles of scientists and the public, and argues that this division often overlooks the complexities of modern (...) class='Hi'>science and democratic decision-making. It highlights the challenges of maintaining both the truth-seeking function of science and the political function of democracy. In turn, the book identifies the epistemic dependence of the public on scientific experts and explores how this dependence interacts with the ideal of autonomy. A significant focus is placed on the problem of specialization in modern science. The book argues that the cognitive division of labor, while necessary for scientific advancement, creates barriers to public understanding and engagement. This specialization complicates the transmission of scientific knowledge and poses a challenge to maintaining democratic oversight and participation. Three main models of integrating science into democracy are examined: the trust model, the epistemic authority model, and the democratic authority model. While each model offers valuable insights, none of them appears to be sufficient on its own. Therefore, the author proposes a synthesized approach that incorporates trust, epistemic rigor, and democratic principles. By addressing the interrelated challenges of specialization, epistemic dependence, and democratic legitimacy, this book presents a comprehensive normative framework for integrating science into democratic decision-making. (shrink)

The global Covid-19 pandemic has changed many aspects of our social and political lives, such as the balance between work and family, the shrinking role of the public sphere and the growth of gover...

This book addresses the complex relationship between the values of liberal democracy and the values associated with scientific research. The chapters explore how these values mutually reinforce or conflict with one another, in both historical and contemporary contexts. -/- The contributors utilize various approaches to address this timely subject, including historical studies, philosophical analysis, and sociological case studies. The chapters cover a range of topics including academic freedom and autonomy, public control of science, the relationship between scientific pluralism (...) and deliberative democracy, lay-expert relations in a democracy, and the threat of populism and autocracy to scientific inquiry. Taken together the essays demonstrate how democratic values and the epistemic and non-epistemic values associated with science are interconnected. (shrink)

Taking insights from the philosophy of science and technology, theories of participatory democracy and Critical Theory, the author tackles and explores how democratic participation in scientific research and technological innovation could be possible, as a deliberative means of improving the rational basis for the development of modern society.

En este trabajo presentamos una reflexión filosófica y psicoanalítica acerca de la democracia basándonos fundamentalmente en el legado de Sigmund Freud. En el segmento primero, intentamos fundamentar por qué el psicoanálisis es incompatible con el fascismo y, de modo inverso, por qué esta disciplina sólo puede trabajar bajo la forma de gobierno de un Estado de Derecho. Simultáneamente, el núcleo democrático del psicoanálisis revela su coherencia con la voluntad científica que su creador manifiesta, sin dejar de poner a prueba las (...) representaciones canónicas y de derribar algunas ilusiones idealistas acerca de la "democracia" y la "ciencia". En la segunda parte, pretendemos extraer del psicoanálisis y de cierta filosofía vinculada al mismo algunas claves para repensar la cultura democrática contemporánea. Los desarrollos freudianos conducen a radicalizar la idea básica de la libertad de expresión poniendo en evidencia algunas amenazas que pueden transformarla en una declaración narcótica de principios que se agote en sí misma. In this work we present a psychoanalytical and philosophical reflection on democracy, based mainly on Sigmund Freud's legacy. In the first section, we try to fundament why psychoanalysis is incompatible with fascism and, conversely, why this discipline only works in the environment of the Rule of Law. Simultaneously, the democratic core of psychoanalysis reveals its coherence with the scientific will manifested by its maker, even while testing canonical representations and demolishing some idealistic illusions about "democracy" and "science". In the second part, we aim at extracting from psychoanalysis, and from some philosophy related to it, some clues to re-think contemporary democratic culture. Freudian developments lead to a radicalization of the basic idea of freedom of speech, disclosing some threats that may turn it into a narcotic declaration of principles which would be exhausted in itself. (shrink)

Philosophy &Public Affairs, Volume 52, Issue 1, Page 5-41, Winter 2024.

This chapter will develop and apply ideas drawn from and inspired by Dewey’s work on science and democracy to the context of international relations (IR). I will begin with Dewey’s views on the nature of democracy, which lead us into his philosophy of science. I will show that scientific and policy inquiry are inextricably related processes, and that they both have special requirements in a democratic context. There are some challenges applying these ideas to the IR (...) case, but these challenges can be surmounted. To illustrate the fruitfulness of this Deweyan approach, I will end by showing that it provides an interesting new take on a major international crisis of our day: global climate change. (shrink)

The combination of government’s significant involvement in science, science’s significant effects on the public, and public ignorance raise important challenges for reconciling scientific expertise with democratic governance. Nevertheless, there have recently been a variety of encouraging efforts to make scientific activity more responsive to social values and to develop citizens’ capacity to engage in more effective democratic governance of science. This essay introduces a special issue of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal on “Science, Expertise, and (...) Democracy,” consisting of five papers that developed from the inaugural Three Rivers Philosophy conference held at the University of South Carolina in April 2011. The pieces range from a general analysis of the in-principle compatibility of scientific expertise and democracy to much more concrete studies of the intersection between scientific practices and democratic values in areas such as weight-of-evidence analysis, climate science, and studies of locally undesirable land uses. (shrink)