Principled Revisability in Science and Society. A Supplementary Approach to Respond to Infectious Disease Outbreaks under the Guidance of Science
type: CreativeWork
description: # Principled Revisability in Science and Society ## A supplementary approach to respond to infectious disease outbreaks under the guidance of science Scrutiny and analysis of the credible- and trustworthy-making features of individual scientists, scientific institutions, and structures often takes center stage in philosophy of science. Still, the question of what would minimally be needed of members of the wider public for science to be aimed at its epistemic, but also non-epistemic aims, has not received as much diligent attention. A rather obvious answer to the question what members of society would minimally need to bring to the table is trust. Science relies on substantial sections of the public to trust scientific institutions and processes and its output. Further, members of society ought to be able to trust science, not only in terms of accepting its results, but also choose individual actions in accordance with science’s advice, recommendations, and warnings, if science is to be directed towards addressing our epistemic and non-epistemic interests. This has led philosophers to both, turn their attention inwards and outwards. That is, the relation between science in society is grasped via an inwards assessment of the inner workings of scientific institutions and claims to knowledge and expertise of individual scientists, to subsequently argue that many members of the public can only but blindly trust in scientific expertise, given their own lack of access to epistemic and practical resources. Granted – on the one hand, in lacking epistemic and practical resources and access the public may come to trust more willingly. At least, if scientists and experts are credible and trustworthy, and science as a collection of institutions is organized in a way that the public’s trust is warranted and upheld. Unaddressed by such an internal-facing view, however, remains, what would still be minimally required of the public to be willing and able to trust scientists, expert…
abstract: # Principled Revisability in Science and Society ## A supplementary approach to respond to infectious disease outbreaks under the guidance of science Scrutiny and analysis of the credible- and trustworthy-making features of individual scientists, scientific institutions, and structures often takes center stage in philosophy of science. Still, the question of what would minimally be needed of members of the wider public for science to be aimed at its epistemic, but also non-epistemic aims, has not received as much diligent attention. A rather obvious answer to the question what members of society would minimally need to bring to the table is trust. Science relies on substantial sections of the public to trust scientific institutions and processes and its output. Further, members of society ought to be able to trust science, not only in terms of accepting its results, but also choose individual actions in accordance with science’s advice, recommendations, and warnings, if science is to be directed towards addressing our epistemic and non-epistemic interests. This has led philosophers to both, turn their attention inwards and outwards. That is, the relation between science in society is grasped via an inwards assessment of the inner workings of scientific institutions and claims to knowledge and expertise of individual scientists, to subsequently argue that many members of the public can only but blindly trust in scientific expertise, given their own lack of access to epistemic and practical resources. Granted – on the one hand, in lacking epistemic and practical resources and access the public may come to trust more willingly. At least, if scientists and experts are credible and trustworthy, and science as a collection of institutions is organized in a way that the public’s trust is warranted and upheld. Unaddressed by such an internal-facing view, however, remains, what would still be minimally required of the public to be willing and able to trust scientists, expert…
author: Stöllger, David
date published: 2024-09-18
date modified: 2026-07-27T18:50:04Z
provider: Universität Bielefeld
publisher: Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations
type: WebPage
source organization: Universität Bielefeld