Advertisement

Res Publica

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 415–432 | Cite as

Science as Public Reason: A Restatement

  • Cristóbal Bellolio Badiola
WINNER OF THE PG ESSAY PRIZE

Abstract

According to John Rawls, the methods and conclusions of science—when these are non-controversial—constitute public reasons. However, several objections have been raised against this view. This paper focuses on two objections. On the one hand, the associational objection states that scientific reasons are the reasons of the scientific community, and thus paradigmatically non-public in the Rawlsian sense. On the other hand, the controversiality objection states that the non-controversiality requirement rules out their public character when scientific postulates are resisted by a significant portion of the citizenry. The paper replies that both objections miss their mark. To the associational objection, it replies that the relevant test for a reason to be public is whether the reasons have been construed under the rules and constrains of a public frame of thought. Insofar as scientific methods and conclusions correspond to the principles of reasoning and rules of evidence that liberals understand as public, their associational origin is secondary. To the controversiality objection, it replies that the standard for a scientific argument to be regarded as non-controversial should refer to its degree of intra-scientific consensus, since ordinary citizens accept or reject scientific pronouncements conditioned to their particular comprehensive views. Nonetheless, a wide extra-scientific agreement on the epistemic virtues of the scientific method will be needed. The paper concludes that there is a good case to think about scientific reasons as public to the extent that scientific reasoning is a mode of inquiry that mirrors a central aspiration of Rawlsian political liberalism: having a public way of thought and an impersonal standpoint to adjudicate between competing claims.

Keywords

Political liberalism Rawls Public reason Science Epistemology 

References

  1. Anderson, Elizabeth. 2011. Democracy, Public Policy, and Lay Assessments of Scientific Testimony. Episteme 8(2): 144–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boudry, Martin. 2013. Loki’s Wager and Laudan’s Error. On Genuine and Territorial Demarcation. In Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, ed. M. Pigliucci and M. Boudry, 79–98. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Estlund, David. 2012. The Truth in Political Liberalism. In Truth in Democratic Politics, ed. A. Norris and J. Elkins, 251–271. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  4. Freeman, Samuel. 2016. Original Position. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta.Google Scholar
  5. Galston, William. 1995. Two Concepts of Liberalism. Ethics 105(3): 516–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gaus, Gerald. 1996. Justificatory Liberalism: An Essay on Epistemology and Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Jønch-Clausen, Klaus, and Klemens Kappel. 2016. Scientific Facts and Methods in Public Reason. Res Publica 22(2): 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kahan, Dan, and Donald Braman. 2006. Cultural Cognition and Public Policy. Yale Law & Policy Review 24(1): 149–172.Google Scholar
  9. Kitcher, Philip. 2011. Science in a Democratic Society. New York, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  10. McKinnon, Catriona. 2012. Climate Change and Future Justice. Precaution, Compensation and Triage. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nussbaum, Martha. 2001. Political Objectivity. New Literary History 32(4): 883–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Parsons, Keith. 2005. Defending the Radical Center. In Scientific Values and Civic Virtues, ed. N. Koertge, 159–171. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Quine, W. V. O. 1957. The Scope and Language of Science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 8(29): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rawls, John. 1999a. Collected Papers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Rawls, John. 1999b [1971]. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Rawls, John. 2005 [1993]. Political Liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Scanlon, T. M. 2003. Rawls on Justification. In The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, ed. S. Freeman, 139–167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Taschetto, Diana. 2015. Justification and Justice: Rawls, Quine and Ethics as Science. Principia: An international Journal of Epistemology 19(1): 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Torcello, Lawrence. 2011. The Ethics of Inquiry, Scientific Belief, and Public Discourse. Public Affairs Quarterly 25(3): 197–215.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Adolfo IbáñezPeñalolénChile

Personalised recommendations