This lecture connects the issues of the legitimacy of government, and the value of democracy with the issue of science, what it is and its role in society.
Should science be more democratic?
The first part of the lecture, presents an argument for why democracy requires that the people at large have to be involved in science. It draws strongly on the book "Science in a Democratic Society" by Philip Kitcher, but also the texts by Anderson and Kitcher in the readings:
For reflection
- What do you think? Is freedom only possible if science is more democratic? Is science currently democratic? How do you think it could become more democratic?
How can science be more democratic?
If science should be more democratic, how can that happen. I discuss three areas:
- What to do research on?
- How to transfer scientific knowledge to the public?
- How to certify scientific knowledge and check whether it is good enough?
For reflection
- What do you think the democratic requirements on scientific investigation entail for privately funding of research projects and directions?
There is another area, which I don't mention much in the lecture:
- Who should be involved in science?
There are many interesting questions about this issue as well. I invite you to think about it.
For reflection:
- Think about what the considerations presented in the first part of the lecture, entail for who should be involved in science. Connect these issues with the topic of epistemic injustice.