Facing the Credibility Crisis of Science: On the Ambivalent Role of Pluralism in Establishing Relevance and Reliability

Perspectives on Science 25 (4):439-464 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

. Science at the interface with society is regarded with mistrust among parts of the public. Scientific judgments on matters of practical concern are not infrequently suspected of being incompetent and biased. I discuss two proposals for remedying this deficiency. The first aims at strengthening the independence of science and suggests increasing the distance to political and economic powers. The drawback is that this runs the risk of locking science in an academic ivory tower. The second proposal favors “counter-politicization” in that research is strongly focused on projects “in the public interest,” that is, on projects whose expected results will benefit all those concerned by these results. The disadvantage is that the future use of research findings cannot be delineated reliably in advance. I argue that the underlying problem is the perceived lack of relevance and reliability and that pluralism is an important step toward its solution. Pluralism serves to stimulate a more inclusive research agenda and strengthens the well-testedness of scientific approaches. However, pluralism also prevents the emergence of clear-cut practical suggestions. Accordingly, pluralism is part of the solution to the credibility crisis of science, but also part of the problem. In order for science to be suitable as a guide for practice, the leeway of scientific options needs to be narrowed – in spite of uncertainty in epistemic respect. This reduction can be achieved by appeal to criteria that do not focus on the epistemic credentials of the suggestions but on their appropriateness in practical respect.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Prophets facing backwards: An appreciation.T. Jayaraman - 2005 - Social Epistemology 19 (1):99 – 110.
Modern Pluralism: Anglo-American Debates Since 1880.Mark Bevir (ed.) - 2012 - Cambridge University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-07-21

Downloads
38 (#365,484)

6 months
5 (#246,492)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Martin Carrier
Bielefeld University

Citations of this work

What Does Good Science-Based Advice to Politics Look Like?Martin Carrier - 2021 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 53 (1):5-21.
Public engagement and argumentation in science.Silvia Ivani & Catarina Dutilh Novaes - 2022 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 12 (3):1-29.
Revisiting the Basic/Applied Science Distinction: The Significance of Urgent Science for Science Funding Policy.Jamie Shaw - 2022 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 53 (4):477-499.
Religious Ethics and Empirical Ethics.Ross Moret - 2021 - Journal of Religious Ethics 49 (1):33-67.

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas S. Kuhn - 1962 - Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Edited by Ian Hacking.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas Samuel Kuhn - 1962 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Edited by Otto Neurath.
Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal.Heather Douglas - 2009 - University of Pittsburgh Press.

View all 43 references / Add more references