Experts and Consensus in Social Science pp 275-295

Part of the Ethical Economy book series (SEEP, volume 50) | Cite as

Private Epistemic Virtue, Public Vices: Moral Responsibility in the Policy Sciences

Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter we address what we call “The-Everybody-Did-It” (TEDI) Syndrome, a symptom for collective negligence. Our main thesis is that the character of scientific communities can be evaluated morally and be found wanting in terms of moral responsibility. Even an epistemically successful scientific community can be morally responsible for consequences that were unforeseen by it and its members and that follow from policy advice given by its individual members. We motivate our account by a critical discussion of a recent proposal by Heather Douglas. We offer three, related criticisms of Douglas’s account. First, she assumes that scientific fields are communicative communities. Second, in a system where the scientific community autonomously sets standards, there is a danger of self-affirming reasoning. Third, she ignores that the character of a scientific community is subject to moral evaluation. We argue that these omissions in Douglas’s theory leave it with no adequate response to TEDI Syndrome. Moreover, we deny that science ought to be characterized by unanimity of belief among its competent practitioners, this leads easily to the vices of close-mindedness and expert-overconfidence. If a scientific community wishes to avoid these vices it should create conditions for an active pluralism when it and its members aspire to the position of rational policy decision-making.

References

  1. Anderson, Elizabeth. 2011. Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/feminism-epistemology/.
  2. Angner, E. 2006. Economists as experts: Overconfidence in theory and practice. Journal of Economic Methodology 13(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aumann, R.J. 1976. Agreeing to disagree. Annals of Statistics 4(6): 1236–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batens, D. 1974. Rationality and justification. Philosophica 14: 83–103.Google Scholar
  5. Batens, D. 2004. Menselijke Kennis: Pleidooi voor een Bruikbare Rationaliteit, 2nd ed. Antwerpen-Apeldoorn: Garant.Google Scholar
  6. Bernstein, A. 2001. Restatement (third) of torts: General principles and the prescription of masculine order. Vanderbilt Law Review 54(3): 1367–1411.Google Scholar
  7. Boettke, P.J., P.T. Leeson, and C.J. Coyne. 2010. Contra-Whig history of economic ideas and the problem of the endogenous past. GMU Working Paper in Economics, No. 10-31. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1686134.
  8. Bridgman, P.W. 1947. Scientists and social responsibility. Scientific Monthly 65: 48–154.Google Scholar
  9. Chang, H. 2004. Inventing temperature: Measurement and scientific progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Jong, Jasper, Mark Roscam Abbing, and Johan Verbruggen. 2010. Voorspellen in crisistijd: De CPB-ramingen tijdens de Grote Recessie. CPB Document No 207. http://www.cpb.nl/sites/default/files/publicaties/download/voorspellen-crisistijd-de-cpb-ramingen-tijdens-degrote-recessie.pdf. Accessed on 17 May 2011.
  11. De Langhe, R. 2009. Why should I adopt pluralism. In Economic pluralism, ed. R. Garnett, E. Olsen, and M. Starr, 87–98. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. De Mey, T. Forthcoming. Human, all too human. In Proceedings of logic reasoning and rationality.Google Scholar
  13. de Solla, D.J. 1965. Networks of scientific papers. Science 149(3683): 510–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Douglas, H. 2009. Science, policy and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  15. Düppe, T., and E.R. Weintraub. 2013. Finding equilibrium. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Emmett, R. 2009. Frank Knight and the Chicago school in American economics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Fama, E. 1970. Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work’. The Journal of Finance 25(2): 383–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feigenbaum, S., and D.M. Levy. 1993. The market for (ir)reproducible econometrics. Accountability in Research 3(1): 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feinberg, J. 1970. Doing and deserving. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Greenawalt, K. 1992. Law and objectivity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hacking, I. 1992. The self-vindication of laboratory sciences. In Science as practice and culture, ed. A. Pickering. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Harberger, A.C. 1971. Three basic postulates for applied welfare economics: An interpretive essay. Journal of Economic Literature 9(3): 785–797.Google Scholar
  23. Hetcher, S. 2001. Non-utilitarian negligence norms and the reasonable person standard. Vanderbilt Law Review 54(3): 863–892.Google Scholar
  24. Holmes, O.W. 1881. The common law. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  25. Honoré, T. 1988. Responsibility and luck. The Law Quarterly Review 104: 530–553.Google Scholar
  26. Keating, M., and D. Della Porta. 2010. In defense of pluralism in the social sciences. European Political Science 9: S111–S120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keynes, John Maynard. 1921. Treatise on probability. London: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar
  28. Khan, M.A. 1992a. On measuring the social opportunity cost of labour in the presence of tariffs and an informal sector. The Pakistan Development Review 31(4 I): 535–564.Google Scholar
  29. Khan, M.A. 1992b. Comments on Professor Summers. The Pakistan Development Review 31: 394–400.Google Scholar
  30. Khan, M.A. 1993. On education as a commodity. The Pakistan Development Review 32: 541–579.Google Scholar
  31. Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Knight, Frank H. 1921. Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Boston: Hart, Schaffner and Marx/Houghton Mifflin Co.Google Scholar
  33. Levy, David M., and Sandra J. Peart. 2008. Analytical egalitarianism. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 67(3): 473–479. Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Mäki, U. 2011. Scientific realism as a challenge to economics (and vice versa). Journal of Economic Methodology 18(1): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McIntyre, A. 2011. Doctrine of double effect. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Fall 2011 ed, ed. Edward N. Zalta. URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/double-effect/.
  36. Mitchell, S., and M.R. Dietrich. 2006. Integration without unification: An argument for pluralism in the biological sciences. The American Naturalist 168: S73–S79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nersessian, N. 2008. Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Nickles, T. 1980. Scientific discovery, logic, and rationality. Boston: D. Reidel Pub. Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pickering, A. 1992. Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Post, H. 1971. Correspondence, invariance and heuristics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 2: 213–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scalet, S. 2003. Fitting the people they are meant to serve: Reasonable persons in the American legal system. Law and Philosophy 22: 75–110.Google Scholar
  42. Schliesser, E. 2005. Galilean reflections on Milton Friedman’s ‘Methodology of Positive Economics’, with thoughts on Vernon Smith’s ‘Economics in the Laboratory’. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 35(1): 50–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schliesser, E. 2008. Philosophy and a scientific future of the history of economics. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 30: 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schliesser, Eric. 2009. Prophecy, eclipses and whole-sale markets: A case study on why data driven economic history requires history of economics, a philosopher's reflection. Jarhrbuch für Wirthschaftsgeschichte 50(1): 195–208.Google Scholar
  45. Schliesser, E. 2011. Four species of reflexivity and history of economics in economic policy science. Journal of the Philosophy of History 5: 425–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schliesser, E. 2012. Inventing paradigms, monopoly, methodology, and mythology at ‘Chicago’: Nutter, Stigler, and Milton Friedman. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43: 160–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, Vernon L., Gerry L. Suchanek, and Arlington W. Williams. 1988. Bubbles, crashes, and endogenous expectations in experimental spot asset markets. Econometrica 56(5): 1119–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stigler, G.J. 1969. Does economics have a useful past? History of Political Economy 1(2): 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stigler, G.J. 1975. The citizen and the State: Essays on regulation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Tullock, G. 2005. The selected works of Gordon Tullock, The organization of inquiry, vol. 3. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  51. Van Bouwel, J. 2004. Explanatory pluralism in economics: Against the mainstream? Philosophical Explorations 7(3): 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Bouwel, J. 2005. Towards a framework for the pluralisms in economics. Post-Autistic Economics Review 30: art.3.Google Scholar
  53. Van Bouwel, Jeroen. 2015. Towards democratic models of sciennce: Exploring the case of scientific pluralism. Philosophy and Religion (in press).Google Scholar
  54. Votsis, I. 2011. Structural realism: Continuity and its limits. In Scientific structuralism, ed. P. Bokulich and A. Bokulich. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Moral ScienceGhent UniversityGentBelgium

Personalised recommendations