Abstract
Science is one of the most important forces in contemporary society. The most reliable source of knowledge about the world, science shapes the technological possibilities before us, informs public policy, and is crucial to measuring the efficacy of public policy. Yet it is not a simple repository of facts on which we can draw. It is an ongoing process of evidence gathering, discovery, contestation, and criticism. I will argue that an understanding of the nature of science and the scientific process should be the central goal for scientific literacy, rather than a grasp of specific (often disciplinary) facts. With this understanding of science as a backdrop, the paper then turns to modes for citizen engagement with science. This paper articulates different ways citizens can engage with science, including four avenues for legitimate contestation of scientific claims. I then look more closely at contestation of science on the basis of values. That science can be legitimately contested by non-experts on a range of grounds means that science communication should not just aim at getting citizens to accept scientific claims, but rather to engage in a more robust two-way conversation about science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
If this understanding of science can be taught effectively before high school, so much the better. Blackawton et al. 2011 suggests that it can.
- 2.
Similar concerns are raised by Bauer et al. 2007, who note that there is empirical disagreement on whether “the more you know, the more you love it” or “familiarity breeds contempt.” (p. 84)
- 3.
There are exceptions. See, e.g. Trautmann et al. 2012 for how citizen science can transform education contexts by allowing students to pursue inquiry with their own questions. Such a use of citizen science feeds well into the educational goals articulated above.
- 4.
A similar taint of irrationality is found in blaming the fragmented nature of the media and the way in which our information searches are structurally being driven to like-minded sources as a reason for why we disagree. Even if the information infrastructure distorts our searches in this way, we should act to counter such trends. (Miller and Record 2013)
- 5.
- 6.
Rare but often astounding and important, as can be seen in the recent case of Flint water contamination. See the story of Lee Anne Walters covered here http://michiganradio.org/post/mom-helped-uncover-what-was-really-going-flint-s-water#stream/0
- 7.
As Liz Neeley notes Achenbach 2015, 45.
- 8.
By rational, I don’t just mean in one’s practical interests. I also mean justifiable publicly, i.e. a reasoned basis that can be stated publicly.
References
Achenbach, J. 2015. The Age of Disbelief. National Geographic, March Issue, 227: 30–47.
Bauer, M.W., N. Allum, and S. Miller. 2007. What Can We Learn From 25 Years of PUS Survey Research? Liberating and Expanding the Agenda. Public Understanding of Science 16(1): 79–95.
Blackawton, P.S., S. Airzee, A. Allen, et al. 2011. Blackawton Bees. Biology Letters 7(2): 168–172.
Bolsen, T., J.N. Druckman, and F.L. Cook. 2015. Citizens’, Scientists’, and Policy Advisors’ Beliefs About Global Warming. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 658(1): 271–295.
Clifford, W.K. 1877. The Ethics of Belief. In The Ethics of Belief and Other Essays, ed. T. Madigan, 70–96. Amherst: Prometheus.
Deer, B. 2011. Secrets of the MMR Scare: How the Case Against the MMR Vaccine Was Fixed. British Medical Journal 342: c5347.
Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2013. An Assessment of Key Evidence About Neonicotinoids and Bees. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-assessment-of-key-evidence-about-neonicotinoids-and-bees.
Dickinson, J.L., and R. Bonney. 2012. Citizen Science: Public Participation in Environmental Research. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Douglas, H. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
———. 2014. Scientific Integrity in a Politicized World. In Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress, ed. Peter Schroeder-Heister, Gerhard Heinzmann, Wilfrid Hodges, and Pierre Edouard Bour, 253–268. London: College Publications.
———. 2015. Politics & Science: Untangling Values, Ideologies, and Reasons. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 658: 296–306.
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2013. EFSA Guidance Document on the Risk Assessment of Plant Protection Products on Bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3295.
Goldenberg, M. 2016. Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy. Perspectives on Science 24: 552–581.
IOM (Institute of Medicine– Immunization Safety Review Committee). 2004. Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
James, W. 1896. The Will to Believe: And Other Essays in Popular Philosophy. New York: Longmans, Green & Company.
Kahan, D.M., E. Peters, M. Wittlin, P. Slovic, L.L. Ouellette, D. Braman, and G. Mandel. 2012. The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks. Nature Climate Change 2(10): 732–735.
Longino, H.E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
———. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Miller, S. 2001. Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 115–120.
Miller, J.D. 2004. Public Understanding of, and Attitudes Toward, Scientific Research: What We Know and What We Need to Know. Public Understanding of Science 13(3): 273–294.
Miller, B., and I. Record. 2013. Justified Belief in a Digital Age: On the Epistemic Implications of Secret Internet Technologies. Episteme 10(02): 117–134.
Pew Research Center. 2015. Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society, January 29, 2015.
Schweingruber, H., T. Keller, and H. Quinn, ed. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.
Shen, Helen. 2013. Inequality Quantified: Mind the Gender Gap. Nature 495: 22–24. http://www.nature.com/news/inequality-quantified-mind-the-gender-gap-1.12550.
Smith, T., and J. Son. 2013. General Social Survey 2012 Final Report: Trends in Public Attitudes About Confidence in Institutions. Chicago: NORC at the University of Chicago.
Solomon, M. 2001. Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Stegenga, J. 2016. Hollow Hunt for Harms. Perspectives on Science 24: 481–504.
Thagard, P. 1998. Ulcers and Bacteria I: Discovery and Acceptance. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 29(1): 107–136.
Trautmann, N.M., J.L. Shirk, J. Fee, and M.E. Krasny. 2012. Who Poses the Question? Using Citizen Science to Help K-12 Teachers Meet the Mandate for Inquiry. In Citizen Science: Public Participation in Environmental Research, ed. Dickinson and Bonney, 179–190. Ithaca: Comstock Publishing Associates.
Wilholt, T. 2013. Epistemic Trust in Science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64(2): 233–253.
Wynne, B. 1996. Misunderstood Misunderstandings: Social Identities and the Public Uptake of Science. In Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, ed. A. Irwin and B. Wynne. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Douglas, H. (2017). Science, Values, and Citizens. In: Adams, M., Biener, Z., Feest, U., Sullivan, J. (eds) Eppur si muove: Doing History and Philosophy of Science with Peter Machamer. The Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, vol 81. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52768-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52768-0_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52766-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52768-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)