Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Democratic Control of the Scientific Control of Politics

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
EPSA11 Perspectives and Foundational Problems in Philosophy of Science

Part of the book series: The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings ((EPSP,volume 2))

Abstract

I discuss two popular but apparently contradictory theses:

  1. T1.

    The democratic control of science – the aims and activities of science should be subject to public scrutiny via democratic processes of representation and participation.

  2. T2.

    The scientific control of policy, i.e. technocracy – political processes should be problem-solving pursuits determined by the methods and results of science and technology.

Many arguments can be given for (T1), both epistemic and moral/political; I will focus on an argument based on the role of non-epistemic values in policy-relevant science. I will argue that we must accept (T2) as a result of an appraisal of the nature of contemporary political problems. Technocratic systems, however, are subject to serious moral and political objections; these difficulties are sufficiently mitigated by (T1). I will set out a framework in which (T1) and (T2) can be consistently and compellingly combined.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Anderson (2007) covers several of these sorts of arguments.

  2. 2.

    Because the focus is on science in its role in the public, especially policy, and not in the abstract, what is at issue cannot be merely epistemic authority, if that is understood in a way that is irrelevant to social authority.

  3. 3.

    The type of “authority” in question concerns the voice that experts qua experts have over and above ordinary citizens in policy deliberations. The authority of those policies, once adopted, is a separate issue.

  4. 4.

    E.g., Feyerabend, Against Method, (1975, p. 299).

  5. 5.

    Douglas’s own approach is largely based on models of participatory democracy and the “analytic-deliberative” model set out in Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (Stern and Fineberg 1996). My alternative approach will be laid out in Sect. 4.

  6. 6.

    Recent exchanges over monetary policy between U.S. Congressman Ron Paul and Federal Reserve chairman and economic expert Ben Bernanke are a particularly evocative version of this. See, e.g., http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/bernanke-to-ron-paul-gold-isnt-money/241903/

  7. 7.

    See also Mark B. Brown, “Is Climate Change Good for Democracy,” Center for Values in Medicine, Science, and Technology, September 2011. http://www.utdallas.edu/c4v/mark-b-brown-is-climate-change-good-for-democracy/

  8. 8.

    Philosophers who have objected to the idea that policy should be directed by experts will be addressed in Sect. 5.

  9. 9.

    The theory of inquiry was a major concern throughout Dewey’s career, including works such as Studies in Logical Theory (1903), How We Think (1910/1933), Essays in Experimental Logic (1916), and Logic: The Theory of Inquiry (1938).

References

  • Anderson, E. (2007). The epistemology of democracy. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 3(1), 8–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohman, J. (1999). Democracy as inquiry, inquiry as democratic: Pragmatism, social science, and the cognitive division of labor. American Journal of Political Science, 43(2), 590–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. B. (2009). Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1903). Studies in logical theory. Chicago. University. The decennial publications (2d ser., Vol. XI). Chicago: The University of Chicago press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1916 [2007]). Essays in experimental logic. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1927[1986/2008]). The public and its problems (The later works of John Dewey, Vol. 2). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1933 [1986/2008]). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. (The later works of John Dewey, Vol. 8). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938 [1986/2008]). Logic: The theory of inquiry. (The later works of John Dewey, Vol. 12). Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1939 [1986/2008]). Freedom and culture. (The later works of John Dewey, Vol. 13). Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 559–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, H. (2005). Inserting the public into science. In S. Maasen & P. Weingart (Eds.), Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making (Sociology of the sciences yearbook, Vol. 24, pp. 153–169). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London and Atlantic Highlands: New Left Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1978). Science in a free society. London: New Left Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gore, A. (2009). Our choice: A plan to solve the climate crisis. Emmaus: Rodale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2009). Essential parallel between science and democracy. Seed Magazine. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_essential_parallel_between_science_and_democracy. Accessed 16 June 2012.

  • Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kourany, J. A. (2010). Philosophy of science after feminism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitcham, C. (1997). Engineering design research and social responsibility. In K. Shrader-Frechette & L. Westra (Eds.), Technology and values (pp. 261–278). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C., & Fineberg, H. V. (Eds.). (1996). Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S. (2001). What is the problem with experts? Social Studies of Science, 31(1), 123–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Values in Medicine, Science, and Technology, The University of Texas at Dallas, 800, W. Campbell Rd, JO 31, Richardson, TX, 75248, USA

    Matthew J. Brown

Authors
  1. Matthew J. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew J. Brown .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy and History of Science, Faculty of Sciences, University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Vassilios Karakostas

  2. Inst. History & Foundations of Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Dennis Dieks

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Brown, M.J. (2013). The Democratic Control of the Scientific Control of Politics. In: Karakostas, V., Dieks, D. (eds) EPSA11 Perspectives and Foundational Problems in Philosophy of Science. The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01306-0_39

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation