The Limits of Democratizing Science
When Scientists Should Ignore the Public
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10704688 |
|---|---|
| Authors | S Andrew Schroeder (0000-0001-7305-3283, Claremont McKenna College, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 89 |
| Issue | 5 |
| Pages | 1034-1043 |
| Publication date | 2022-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Philosophy of Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0031-8248 • E-ISSN: 1539-767X |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/psa.2022.54 |
| OpenAlex | W4281386156 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
Scientists are frequently called upon to “democratize” science, by bringing the public into scientific research. One appealing point for public involvement concerns the nonepistemic values involved in science. Suppose, though, a scientist invites the public to participate in making such value-laden determinations but finds that the public holds values the scientist considers morally unacceptable. Does the argument for democratizing science commit the scientist to accepting the public’s objectionable values, or may she veto them? I argue that there are a limited set of cases in which scientists can, consistently with a commitment to democratized science, set aside the public’s judgments
Argument (complex analysis) · Aside · Commit · Epistemology · Philosophy of science · Political science · Politics · Science communication · Science education · Set (abstract data type) · Sociology · Value (mathematics) · Veto · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Computer Science · Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies · Law · Mathematics · Philosophy · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
| Unique citing works | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,5 |
| Citation span | 2022 - 2025 (4) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 6 |