Science, Truth, and Democracy

Abstract

What should be the goal of science in a democratic society? Some say, to attain the truth; others deny the possibility (or even the intelligibility) of truth‐seeking. Science, Truth, and Democracy attempts to provide a different answer. It is possible to make sense of the notion of truth, and to understand truth as correspondence to a mind‐independent world. Yet science could not hope to find the whole truth about that world. Scientific inquiry must necessarily be selective, focusing on the aspects of nature that are deemed most important. Yet how should that judgement be made? The book's answer is that the search for truth should be combined with a respect for democracy. The scientific research that should strike us as significant would address the questions singled out as most important in an informed deliberation among parties committed to each others’ well‐being. The book develops this perspective as an ideal of ‘well‐ordered science’, relating this ideal both to past efforts at science policy and to the possibility that finding the truth may not always be what we want. It concludes with a chapter on the responsibilities of scientists.

Realizing Societal Benefit from Academic Research: Analysis of the National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Criterion

“…Not only did the memo neglect to mention basic research, but it also called for less separation between knowledge producers and users by encouraging collaborations between "people involved in making and using things" and encouraging agencies to explore open innovation to "become highly open to ideas from many players at all stages" (Orzag and Holdren 2009). Challenges to the linear model are not merely political. Science and innovation policy scholars have long discredited the model (Branscomb, Holton, and Sonnert 2002;Pielke and Byerly 1998 ;Etzkowitz and Leysdorff 2000;Funtowicz 1993;Gibbons et al 1994 ;Guston and Keniston 1994;Kitcher 2001;Sarewitz and Pielke 2007;Sarewitz 1996;Stokes 1997). One of the leading alternatives to the linear model is Donald Stokes' Quadratic Model of science.…”

The mind, the lab, and the field: Three kinds of populations in scientific practice

“…We saw that Neyman, Park, and Scott analyzed their assumptions in an explicit and sustained manner, using a scheme similar to our trichotomy to understand their subject. 13 Third, the concept of "population" in ecology and evolution is a potentially useful case study of model, concept, and ontology pluralism in science (Cartwright, 1999;Dupré, 1993;Giere, 2006;Kitcher, 2001;Levins, 1966Levins, , 1968Levins, , 2006Longino, 2002Longino, , 2013Winther, 2006cWinther, , 2014a. At least sometimes, complex phenomena can be understood as involving multiple properties, objects, and processes, and can be viewed from several perspectives.…”

Special Sciences, Conspiracy and the Better Best System Account of Lawhood

“…Kitcher 2003). Given that standards are local, it is unsurprising that there are certain behaviors not made likely according to the Best System for a fixed set of kinds K. To insist that this not happen, to have all the Systems give high probabilistic weight to each other's patterns in a delicately balanced harmony, is to ask, implausibly, that every system be sensitive to all interests outside its scope.…”