How to Not Secure Public Trust in Science: Representative Values v. Polarization and Marginalization

IF 1.4 2区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2023-09-21 DOI:10.1017/psa.2023.119
Soazig Le Bihan
{"title":"How to Not Secure Public Trust in Science: Representative Values v. Polarization and Marginalization","authors":"Soazig Le Bihan","doi":"10.1017/psa.2023.119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The demise of the value-free ideal constitutes a threat to public trust in science. One proposal is that whenever making value judgments, scientists rely only on democratic values. Since the influence of democratic values on scientific claims and recommendations is legitimate, public trust in science is warranted. I challenge this proposal. Appealing to democratic values will not suffice to secure trust because of at least two obstacles: polarization and marginalization.","PeriodicalId":54620,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science","volume":"51 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.119","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The demise of the value-free ideal constitutes a threat to public trust in science. One proposal is that whenever making value judgments, scientists rely only on democratic values. Since the influence of democratic values on scientific claims and recommendations is legitimate, public trust in science is warranted. I challenge this proposal. Appealing to democratic values will not suffice to secure trust because of at least two obstacles: polarization and marginalization.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
如何不确保公众对科学的信任:代表性价值观与两极分化和边缘化
价值自由理想的消亡对公众对科学的信任构成了威胁。一种建议是,每当做出价值判断时,科学家们只依赖于民主价值观。由于民主价值观对科学主张和建议的影响是合法的,公众对科学的信任是有保证的。我对这一提议提出质疑。诉诸民主价值观将不足以确保信任,因为至少存在两个障碍:两极分化和边缘化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
5.90%
发文量
128
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Since its inception in 1934, Philosophy of Science, along with its sponsoring society, the Philosophy of Science Association, has been dedicated to the furthering of studies and free discussion from diverse standpoints in the philosophy of science. The journal contains essays, discussion articles, and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
Biomimetic Epistemology Landscapes and Bandits: A Unified Model of Functional and Demographic Diversity On Cognitive Modeling and Other Minds An exploration of parameter duality in statistical inference A New Heuristic for Climate Adaptation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1