区分科学探究与政治

IF 0.8 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1017/S0031819122000432
Heather Douglas
{"title":"区分科学探究与政治","authors":"Heather Douglas","doi":"10.1017/S0031819122000432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Protecting science from politicization is an ongoing concern in contemporary society. Yet some political influences on science (e.g., setting public funding amounts) are fully legitimate. We need to have a clear account of when a political influence is politicization (an illegitimate political influence) in order to properly detect and address the problem. I argue in this paper that understanding how the space of scientific inquiry is distinctive from democratic politics can be the basis for defining politicization. Similarities between inquiry and democratic politics have long been noted, but there are important differences as well. I describe four norms that are importantly distinct for inquiry when compared with democratic politics, even if they can be seen as roughly similar. Although there are parallels between democratic political norms and norms for scientific inquiry, there are crucial differences as well. Eliding these differences creates politicization of inquiry. Even as we understand scientific inquiry as pursued within society and responsible to society, we pursue it in a distinctive space, guided by distinctive norms and practices.","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"98 1","pages":"123 - 146"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differentiating Scientific Inquiry and Politics\",\"authors\":\"Heather Douglas\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0031819122000432\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Protecting science from politicization is an ongoing concern in contemporary society. Yet some political influences on science (e.g., setting public funding amounts) are fully legitimate. We need to have a clear account of when a political influence is politicization (an illegitimate political influence) in order to properly detect and address the problem. I argue in this paper that understanding how the space of scientific inquiry is distinctive from democratic politics can be the basis for defining politicization. Similarities between inquiry and democratic politics have long been noted, but there are important differences as well. I describe four norms that are importantly distinct for inquiry when compared with democratic politics, even if they can be seen as roughly similar. Although there are parallels between democratic political norms and norms for scientific inquiry, there are crucial differences as well. Eliding these differences creates politicization of inquiry. Even as we understand scientific inquiry as pursued within society and responsible to society, we pursue it in a distinctive space, guided by distinctive norms and practices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54197,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"volume\":\"98 1\",\"pages\":\"123 - 146\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819122000432\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819122000432","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要保护科学不被政治化是当代社会持续关注的问题。然而,对科学的一些政治影响(例如,设定公共资金数额)是完全合法的。我们需要清楚地了解政治影响何时是政治化(非法政治影响),以便正确发现和解决问题。我在本文中认为,理解科学探究空间与民主政治的区别可以成为定义政治化的基础。调查和民主政治之间的相似之处早已被注意到,但也有重要的区别。我描述了四种规范,与民主政治相比,它们在调查中有着重要的区别,即使它们可以被视为大致相似。尽管民主政治规范和科学探究规范之间有相似之处,但也存在重大差异。消除这些分歧会使调查政治化。尽管我们理解科学探究是在社会内部进行的,也是对社会负责的,但我们在独特的规范和实践的指导下,在一个独特的空间中进行探索。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Differentiating Scientific Inquiry and Politics
Abstract Protecting science from politicization is an ongoing concern in contemporary society. Yet some political influences on science (e.g., setting public funding amounts) are fully legitimate. We need to have a clear account of when a political influence is politicization (an illegitimate political influence) in order to properly detect and address the problem. I argue in this paper that understanding how the space of scientific inquiry is distinctive from democratic politics can be the basis for defining politicization. Similarities between inquiry and democratic politics have long been noted, but there are important differences as well. I describe four norms that are importantly distinct for inquiry when compared with democratic politics, even if they can be seen as roughly similar. Although there are parallels between democratic political norms and norms for scientific inquiry, there are crucial differences as well. Eliding these differences creates politicization of inquiry. Even as we understand scientific inquiry as pursued within society and responsible to society, we pursue it in a distinctive space, guided by distinctive norms and practices.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PHILOSOPHY
PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Philosophy is the journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, which was founded in 1925 to build bridges between specialist philosophers and a wider educated public. The journal continues to fulfil a dual role: it is one of the leading academic journals of philosophy, but it also serves the philosophical interests of specialists in other fields (law, language, literature and the arts, medicine, politics, religion, science, education, psychology, history) and those of the informed general reader. Contributors are required to avoid needless technicality of language and presentation. The institutional subscription includes two supplements.
期刊最新文献
Dark Futures: Toward a Philosophical Archaeology of Hope Mobility, Migration, and Mobile Migration Feeling Responsible: On Regret for Others’ Harms Being Open-Minded about Open-Mindedness P.F. Strawson on Punishment and the Hypothesis of Symbolic Retribution
×
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