Evaluation of Well-Ordered Science: Philip kitcher's Program for Democratizing of Science and Technology Policy-Making

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 - M.Phil. Department of Philosophy, University of Isfahan & M.Phil. Student, Department of Political Science, Shahid Beheshti University (SBU), Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy,University of Isfahan, Iran

jstp.2020.11.4.1057

Abstract

In recent decades, distrust of science and technology has increased due to the application of policies that conflict with the interests of citizens. Democratizing of Science and Technology Policy-Making has always been a solution in these years. Yet, it is plausible to ask whether it is necessary to incorporate democratic values and ideals into the process of scientific activity. And how should scientific institutions and procedures be organized to protect the interests of citizens in a democratic society? Philip Kitcher, a contemporary British philosopher of science, believes that scientific activity in a democratic society must be open to the inclusion of democratic values. He claims that he has been able to put forward a mechanism- with a philosophical basis- for satisfying the aforementioned norms by designing a well-ordered science program, so making a compromise between scientific activity elitist values -Objectivity and Scientific goal- and democratic values –freedom and equality. This paper aims to explain and examine well-ordered science as a program for democratizing science and technology policy-making. In this regard, components such as the relation of value and science and scientific Significance, as the most important philosophical foundations, and Kitcher’s understanding of democracy as a key element of his program have been thoroughly explained. And in two parts, ideal of well-ordered science and kitcher's understanding of democracy, a relatively comprehensive assessment of the arguments put forward for this project has been offered. Finally, it is argued that Kitcher's argument for defending the program of well-ordered science, on the one hand, is theoretically unjustifiable and on the other hand, by the introduction of some kind of elitism, is practically unsuccessful.

Keywords

References

[1] Reiss, J., & Kitcher, Ph. (2009). Biomedical Research, Neglected Diseases, and Well-Ordered Science. Journal of Theoria: An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, 24(3), 263-282.
[2] Emami K., A., & Haghighat, S. (2019). The Relationship between Science and Democracy in the Contemporary Studies and Philosophy of Science. Journal of Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities (MSSH), 25(2), 35-56. {In Persian}.
[3] Sismondo, S. (2012). An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Translated into Persian by Khoshnevis, Y. Tehran: The Soroush Publishing.
[4] Peivasteh, S. (2019). STI Policy Making: Social Aspects and Consequences. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 11(2), 43-57. {In Persian}.
[5] Brown, M. (2009). Science in Democracy. London: The MIT Press.
[6] Cary, W. (1988). Toward a Democratic Strategy for Science. In: Dickson, D. (ed.). The New Politics of Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press Books.
[7] Moussavi, A. (2019). Avenues of Contact and Collaboration for Philosophy of Science with STI Policy. Journal of Science andTechnology Policy, 11(2), 17-28. {In Persian}.
[8] Longino, H. (2002). Science and the Common Good; Thoughts on Philip Kitcher’s Science, Truth, and Democracy. Journal of Philosophy of Science, 69(4), 560-568.
[9] Stevenson, L., & Byerly, H. (2014). The Many Faces of Science: An Introduction to Scientists, Values, and Society. Translated into Persian by MohammadAmini, M. Tehran: The Now Press.
[10] Kitcher, Ph. (2001). Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
[11] Kitcher, Ph. (1993). The Advancement of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.
[12] Kitcher, Ph. (2011). Science in a Democratic Society. New York: Prometheus Books.
[13] Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[14] Cohen, J. (1997). Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy. In: Bohman, J., and Rehg, W. (ed.). Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. London: The MIT Press.
[15] Smith, G. (2003). Deliberative Democracy and the Environment. London and New York: Routledge.
[16] Burtt, E. A. (1995). The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science. Translated into Persian by Soroush, A. Tehran: Elmi va farhangi Publishing Co.
[17] Kitcher, Ph. (2007). Darwin and Democracy. Journal of Crosscurrents, 57(1), 18-37.
[18] Kitcher, Ph. (2002). Reply to Helen Longino. Journal of Philosophy of Science, 69(4), 569-572.
[19] Wolpert, L. (2002). Unpersuasive Thoughts and Unhelpful Ideals. Journal of Science, 295(3), 633.
[20] Goodstein, D. (2002). Setting Scientific Agendas, American Scientist (March–April, 2002). Retrievable at http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/Leads02/scitruthdem.html.
[21] Lewontin, R. (2002). The Politics of Science. Journal of Review of Books, 71(2), 34-40.
[22] Brown, M. (2004). The Political Philosophy of Science Policy. Journal of Minerva, 42(1), 77-95.
[23] Ansari, M. (2005). Discursive Democracy: Democratic Potentials in the Thoughts of Habermas and Bakhtin. Tehran: The Markaz Publishing Co. {In Persian}.
[24] Held, D. (2000). Models of Democracy. Translated into Persian by Mokhber, A. Tehran: Roshangaran Press.
[25] Cohen, C. (1994). Democracy. Translated into Persian by Majidi, F. Tehran: The kharazmi Press.
[26] Keren, A. (2013). Kitcher on Well-Ordered Science: Should Science Be Measured against the Outcomes of Ideal Democratic Deliberation?. Journal of Theoria: An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, 28(2), 233-244.
[27] Dijstelbloem, H. (2014). Science in a Not So Well-Ordered Society: A Pragmatic Critique of Procedural Political Theories of Science and Democracy. Journal of Krisis, 24(1), 39-52.
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics