Protecting Democracy from Science, and Science from Democracy: A Defense of the Science/Politics Boundary (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Democratic Control of the Scientific Control of Politics
2013
""I discuss two popular but apparently contradictory theses: T1. The democratic control of science - the aims and activities of science should be subject to public scrutiny via democratic processes of representation and participation. T2. The scientific control of policy, i.e. technocracy - political processes should be problem-solving pursuits determined by the methods and results of science and technology. Many arguments can be given for (T1), both epistemic and moral/political; I will focus on an argument based on the role of non-epistemic values in policy-relevant science. I will argue that we must accept (T2) as a result of an appraisal of the nature of contemporary political problems. Technocratic systems, however, are subject to serious moral and political objections; these difficulties are sufficiently mitigated by (T1). I will set out a framework in which (T1) and (T2) can be consistently and compellingly combined.""
The essential tension in science and democracy
Social Epistemology, 1993
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.
forthcoming in SATS: Northern European Journal of Philosophy
This essay will argue that democracy requires a corps of public servants for the dissemination of credible, learned, relevant and useful information pertaining to the issues of the day, because scientists are ill-equipped for the task of advising (as contrasted with the task of conducting research in the relevant area) and more importantly because governments cannot ask scientists to provide that information without inadvertently incentivizing third parties to compromise the institution of science itself.
Sciences, politics, and associative democracy: democratizing science and expertizing democracy
Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 2013
Relations between science and politics are under pressure because urgent problems create an increasing external demand on sciences while inside sciences the old idea that "science speaks truth to politics" is increasingly seen as unfeasible and undesirable. We are not forced to choose between such an objectivist and a skepticist model. Associative democracy provides more fruitful interactions between sciences and politics in order to "democratize science/expertise" and to "expertize democracy" compared with the outworn institutional alternative of parliamentary democracyincapable of solving risk-decisions because of limited and misguided information, lack of qualification and practical knowledgeand neo-corporatist "shifts from government to governance"suffering from rigidity, exclusion of legitimate stakeholders, intransparency and lack of democratic legitimacy. It introduces contest where it matters most and where it is most productive: in the framing of issues, in the deliberation/negotiation on alternatives, and in the implementation and control of the chosen problem solving strategy.
In times of a huge and rapidly increasing demand among policy-makers for 'certain' scientific knowledge, (social) scientists increasingly recognize that they cannot and should not live up to these expectations because scientific knowledge of complex and contingent processes is very limited, uncertain and contested. The development of complex open social systems cannot be predicted. In order to adequately describe and explain them social sciences have to become explicitly multi-perspectivist, multidisciplinary , and context-sensitive. The more complex the objects, the more often we are confronted with 'trans-scientific problems', the more important it becomes that 'science gets democratized' and that 'real people enter science'. We have to overcome the cognitivist self-misunderstanding of sciences, to revaluate tacit, local, contextual, practical knowledge and experience. Cognitivist rationalism is – quasi 'naturally'-combined with mega-forecasting, mega-planning and, as we increasingly had to learn, with mega-failures and self-made catastrophies. Associative Democracy provides better institutional models for a fruitful and fair interaction between critical expertise and democratic politics because (i) it presents better institutions and policies to tackle deep, structural 'societal background inequalities', and (ii) it provides better institutional models to guarantee both relational cognitive autonomy of science and the systematic incorporation of relevant stakeholders into deliberation and decision making. It also allows to better combine " individual " and/or " institutional autonomy " of science with new forms of responsiveness and accountability.
Science, Society and Democracy : Freedom of Science as a Catalyzer of Liberty
Scientific Freedom : An Anthology on Freedom of Scientific Research
C ontemporary international political debates pick out a sort of tension between modern science and democracy which have been summarized as dilemmas between the symbolization of liberal-democratic values starting from the view of scientifi c community as an 'open society' (Popper) or 'Republic' (Polanyi) and the challenges of these values through scientifi c exclusivism and elitism. The caricature of science and technology as enemies of society gave rise to worldwide instrumental political interferences into the governance of scientifi c research that have been defi ned as 'epidemics of politics'. 1 During the last two decades, a series of manipulations and censorships of scientifi c information has become quite frequent and peculiar in Italy. The idea that science might lead to an illiberal and technocratic society emerged as a consequence of the philosophical wars during the past half a century between two opposite trends often featured as scientism (which came to be a negative epithet and that is why naturalism is often preferred), according to which science is a value-free inquiry becoming political only in its application, vs. relativism which sees science as value-driven in terms of political power and interest. Such a representation translates a cultural and cognitive confl ict between scientifi c expertise and folk intuitive skepticism about its limits. The unsuccessful or limited use of scientifi c expertise in public life depends mostly on the increasing specialization of sciences and their complex languages. Nevertheless this is not all of the story. The 'continual struggle between the expert and [...] the common man', 2 which philosopher Otto Neurath had identifi ed as characteristic of democracy, 3 is almost always infl uenced by the social conservative functions of those religious faiths, philosophical views and political party lines, which are opposed to liberal values and implicitly
Science and Democracy Reconsidered
Engaging Science, Technology, and Society
To what extent is the normative commitment of STS to the democratization of science a product of the democratic contexts where it is most often produced? STS scholars have historically offered a powerful critical lens through which to understand the social construction of science, and seminal contributions in this area have outlined ways in which citizens have improved both the conduct of science and its outcomes. Yet, with few exceptions, it remains that most STS scholarship has eschewed study of more problematic cases of public engagement of science in rich, supposedly mature Western democracies, as well as examination of science-making in poorer, sometimes non-democratic contexts. How might research on problematic cases and dissimilar political contexts traditionally neglected by STS scholars push the field forward in new ways? This paper responds to themes that came out of papers from two Eastern Sociological Society Presidential Panels on Science and Technology Studies in an Er...