Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:31:04.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in the Philosophy of Science

Science and the Public

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2024

Angela Potochnik
Angela Potochnik
Affiliation:
University of Cincinnati

Summary

Science is a product of society: in its funding, its participation, and its application. This Element explores the relationship between science and the public with resources from philosophy of science. Chapter 1 defines the questions about science's relationship to the public and outlines science's obligation to the public. Chapter 2 considers the Vienna Circle as a case study in how science, philosophy, and the public can relate very differently than they do at present. Chapter 3 examines how public understanding of science can have a variety of different goals and introduces philosophical discussions of scientific understanding as a resource. Chapter 4 addresses public trust in science, including responding to science denial. Chapter 5 considers how expanded participation in science can contribute to public trust of science. Finally, Chapter 6 casts light on how science might discharge its obligations to the public.
Get access

Keywords

public understanding of sciencetrust in sciencepublic engagement with sciencescience and societyparticipatory researchcitizen sciencediversity in science
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in the Philosophy of Science
Online ISBN: 9781009049474
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 25 April 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Elizabeth, 2011. “Democracy, Public Policy, and Lay Assessments of Scientific Testimony.” Episteme 8:144–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardon, Adrian, 2020. The Truth about Denial: Bias and Self-Deception in Science, Politics, and Religion. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Besley, John C. and Hill, Derek, 2020. “Science and Technology: Public Attitudes, Knowledge, and Interest.” NSF Science and Engineering Indicators. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20207/public-familiarity-with-s-t-facts.Google Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo. 2022. “Engaging with Science, Values, and Society: Introduction.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 52: 223–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bright, Liam K. 2018. “Du Bois’ Democratic Defence of the Value Free Ideal.” Synthese 195: 2227–2245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1928. Der Logische Aufbau der Welt. Translated by Rolf A. George, republished in The Logical Structure of the World and Pseudoproblems in Philosophy. Open Court (2003).Google Scholar
Cartieri, Francis and Potochnik, Angela. 2013. “Toward Philosophy of Science’s Social Engagement.” Erkenntnis 79: 901–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1932. “The Elimination of Metaphysics through Logical Analysis of Language.” Erkenntnis II: 60–81. Translated into English by Arthur Pap in A. J. Ayer (ed.), Language, Truth, and Logic. Dover (1936).Google Scholar
Nancy, Cartwright, Cat, Jordi, Fleck, Lola, and Uebel, Thomas E.. 1996. Otto Neurath: Philosophy between Science and Politics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, Anjan. 2022. “Scientific Knowledge vs. Knowledge of Science.” Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00376-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conix, Stijn, Lemeire, Olivier, and Chi, Pei-Shan. 2022. “The Public Relevance of Philosophy.” Synthese 200(1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Constitution and By-Laws of the Philosophy of Science Association.” 1948. Philosophy of Science 15: 176–177.Google Scholar
de Melo-Martín, Inmaculada and Intemann, Kristen. 2018. The Fight against Doubt: How to Bridge the Gap between Scientists and the Public. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regt, De, Henk, W. 2017. Understanding Scientific Understanding. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather E. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather E. 2013. “The Moral Terrain of Science.” Erkenntnis 79: 961–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather E. 2022. “Institutions and the Division of Ethical Labor in Science.” Philosophy of Science Association Biennial Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, November 12.Google Scholar
Dunlap, Lucas, Corris, Amanda, Jacquart, Melissa, Biener, Zvi, and Potochnik, Angela. 2021. “Divergence of Values and Goals in Participatory Research.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 88: 284–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edmonds, David. 2020. The Murder of Professor Schlick: The Rise and Fall of the Vienna Circle. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Elgin, Catherine Z. 2017. True Enough. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin. 2017. A Tapestry of Values. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin. 2022. Values in Science. Elements in Philosophy of Science, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Andrew and Potochnik, Angela. 2023. “Theorizing Participatory Research.” In Anderson, Emily (ed.),Ethical Issues in Stakeholder-Engaged Health Research. Springer.Google Scholar
Carla, Fehr and Plaisance, Kathryn S.. 2010. “Socially Relevant Philosophy of Science: An Introduction.” Synthese 177: 301–316.Google Scholar
Feinstein, Noah. 2011. “Salvaging Science Literacy.” Science Education 95: 168–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorino, Daniel J. 1990. “Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 15: 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleisher, Will and Šešelja, Dunja. 2023. “Responsibility for Collective Epistemic Harms.” Philosophy of Science 90: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 1996. “Overcoming Metaphysics: Carnap and Heidegger.” In Giere, Ronald N., Feigl, Herbert and Richardson, Alan (eds.), Origins of Logical Empiricism. New ed. Vol. 16. University of Minnesota Press, 45–79.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2000. A Parting of the Ways: Carnap, Cassirer, and Heidegger. Open Court.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2007. “Coordination, Constitution, and Convention: The Evolution of the A Priori in Logical Empiricism.” In Uebel, Thomas E. and Richardson, Alan W. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism, 91–116. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fyfe, Aileen. 2017. “How Did the Royal Society Cope with Increasing Specialization?” A History of Scientific Journals, December 30, accessed August 23, 2022. https://arts.st-andrews.ac.uk/philosophicaltransactions/how-did-the-society-deal-with-increasing-specialization/.Google Scholar
Gaieck, William, Lawrence, J. P., Montchal, Maria, Pandori, William, and Valdez-Ward, Evelyn. 2020. “Opinion: Science Policy for Scientists: A Simple Task for Great Effect.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117: 20977–20981.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galison, Peter. 1990. “Aufbau/Bauhaus: Logical Positivism and Architectural Modernism.” Critical Inquiry 16(4): 709–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, Maya J. 2021. Vaccine Hesitancy: Public Trust, Expertise, and the War on Science. University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, Maya J. 2023. “Public Trust in Science.” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 48(2): 366–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2152243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Stephen R. 2012. “The Value of Understanding.” Philosophy Compass 7: 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Stephen. 2021. “Understanding.” In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/understanding/.Google Scholar
Gustafson, Abel, Goldberg, Matthew H., Kotcher, John E., et al. 2020. “Republicans and Democrats Differ in Why They Support Renewable Energy.” Energy Policy 141: 111448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, Hans, Neurath, Otto, and Carnap, Rudolf. 1929. “Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung der Wiener Kreis.” Translated in Sarkar, Sahotra (ed.), The Emergence of Logical Empiricism: From 1900 to the Vienna Circle (Vol. 1). Taylor & Francis (1996), 299–318.Google Scholar
Halpern, Megan K. and Elliott, Kevin C.. 2022. “Science as Experience: A Deweyan Model of Science Communication.” Perspectives on Science 30: 621–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl Gustav. 1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. Free Press.Google Scholar
Hilligardt, Hannah. 2022. “Looking beyond Values: The Legitimacy of Social Perspectives, Opinions and Interests in Science.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 12: 58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofer, Veronika. 2002. “Philosophy of Biology around the Vienna Circle: von Bertalanffy, Ludwig, Woodger, Joseph Henry and Frank., Philipp ” In Heidelberger, Michael and Stadler, Friedrich (eds.), History of Philosophy of Science. Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, Vol. 9. Springer, 325–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Don. 2003. “Two Left Turns Make a Right: On the Curious Political Career of North American Philosophy of Science at Mid-century.” In Richardson, Alan and Hardcastle, Gary (eds.), Logical Empiricism in North America, 25–93. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Hubbs, Graham, O’Rourke, Michael, and Hecht Orzack, Steven. 2020. The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative: The Power of Cross-Disciplinary Practice. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, Dan M. 2017. “‘Ordinary Science Intelligence’: A Science-Comprehension Measure for Study of Risk and Science Communication, with Notes on Evolution and Climate Change.” Journal of Risk Research 20(8): 995–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keren, Arnon (2018). “The Public Understanding of What? Laypersons’ Epistemic Needs, the Division of Cognitive Labor, and the Demarcation of Science.” Philosophy of Science 85(5): 781–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalifa, Kareem (2017). Understanding, Explanation, and Scientific Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimura, Aya H. and Kinchy, Abby. 2016. “Citizen Science: Probing the Virtues and Contexts of Participatory Research.” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 2: 331–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimura, Aya H. and Kinchy, Abby. 2019. Science by the People: Participation, Power, and the Politics of Environmental Knowledge. Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Science. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laplane, Lucie, Mantovani, Paolo, Adolphs, Ralph, et al. 2019. “Why Science Needs Philosophy.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 116: 3948–3952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonelli, Sabina, Spichtinger, Daniel, and Prainsack, Barbara. 2015. “Sticks and Carrots: Encouraging Open Science at Its Source.” Geography and Environment 2: 12–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge. Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCright, Aaron, Dentzman, Katherine, Charters, Meghan, and Dietz, Thomas. 2013. “The Influence of Political Ideology on Trust in Science.” Environmental Research Letters 8: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, Lee. 2021. How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Steve. 2001. “Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads.” Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Charles W. 2005. “‘Ideal Theory’ as Ideology.” Hypatia 20: 165–184.Google Scholar
Neurath, Marie and Kinross, Robin. 2009. The Transformer: Principles of Making Isotype Charts. Hyphen Press.Google Scholar
Neurath, Otto. 1932. “Protokollsätze.” Erkenntnis 3 (1): 204–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neurath, Otto. 1939. Modern Man in the Making. Knopf.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Cailin and Owen Weatherall, James. 2019. The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
OECD. 2019. “PISA 2018 Science Framework.” In PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/f30da688-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office of Science and Technology Policy. 2021. Progress Report on the Implementaion of the Federal STEM Education Strategic Plan. www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2021-CoSTEM-Progress-Report-OSTP.pdf.Google Scholar
Okrent, Abigail and Burke, Amy. 2021. “The STEM Labor Force of Today: Scientists, Engineers, and Skilled Technical Workers.” National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20212.Google Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi. 2019. Why Trust Science? Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi and Conway, Eric M.. 2011. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.Google Scholar
Ottinger, Gwen. 2017. “Reconstructing or Reproducing? Scientific Authority and Models of Change in Two Traditions of Citizen Science.” In Tyfield, David, Lave, Rebecca, Randalls, Samuel, and Thorpe, Charles (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of Science. Routledge, 351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pardo, Rafael and Calvo, Félix. 2004. “The Cognitive Dimension of Public Perceptions of Science: Methodological Issues.” Public Understanding of Science 13(3): 203–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plaisance, Kathryn S. and Elliott, Kevin C.. 2022. “A Framework for Analyzing Broadly Engaged Philosophy of Science.” Philosophy of Science 88: 594–615. https://doi.org/10.1086/713891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potochnik, Angela. 2013. “Defusing Ideological Defenses in Biology.” Bioscience 63(2): 118–123.Google Scholar
Potochnik, Angela. 2015. “The Diverse Aims of Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 53: 71–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potochnik, Angela. 2017. Idealization and the Aims of Science. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potochnik, Angela and Jacquart, Melissa. Forthcoming. Public Engagement with Science: Defining the Project. Elements in Public Engagement with Science. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Potochnik, Angela, Colombo, Matteo, and Wright, Cory. 2018. Recipes for Science: An Introduction to Scientific Methods and Reasoning. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1930. “Kausalität Und Wahrscheinlichkeit.” Erkenntnis 1: 158–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisch, George A. 2005. How the Cold War Transformed the Philosophy of Science: To the Icy Slopes of Logic. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Revised Constitution of the Philosophy of Science Association – 1958.” 1959. Philosophy of Science 26: 63–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romizi, Donata. 2012. “The Vienna Circle’s ‘Scientific World-Conception’: Philosophy of Science in the Political Arena.” Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 2(2): 205–242.Google Scholar
Sanches de Oliveira, Guilherme and Baggs, Edward. 2023. Psychologys’s WEIRD Problems. Elements in Psychology and Culture. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, Andrew. 2022. “Diversifying Science: Comparing the Benefits of Citizen Science with the Benefits of Bringing More Women into Science.” Synthese 200: 306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03774-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirk, Jennifer L., Ballard, Heidi L., Wilderman, Candie C., et al. 2012. “Public Participation in Scientific Research: A Framework for Deliberate Design.” Ecology and Society 17(2). www.jstor.org/stable/26269051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, Kristen Sharon. 1994. Ethics of Scientific Research. Roman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Stadler, Friedrich. 2007. “The Vienna Circle: Context, Profile, and Development.” In Uebel, Thomas E. and Richardson, Alan W. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism, 13–40. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stocklmayer, Susan M. and Bryant, Chris. 2012. “Science and the Public – What Should People Know?” International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement 2(1): 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strevens, Michael. 2020. The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science. 1st ed. Liveright Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Swartz, Talia H., Palermo, Ann-Gel S., Masur, Sandra K., and Aberg., Judith A. “The Science and Value of Diversity: Closing the Gaps in Our Understanding of Inclusion and Diversity.” Journal of Infectious Diseases 220(Supplement_2): S33–S41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uebel, Thomas. 2007. “Philosophy of Social Science in Early Logical Empiricism: The Case of Radical Physicalism.” In Uebel, Thomas E. and Richardson, Alan W. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism. Cambridge University Press, 250–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uebel, Thomas E. and Richardson, Alan W. (eds.). 2007. The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 2022. “Wicker Praises Research, STEM Education Provisions in New CHIPS Act,” July 22 [press release]. www.commerce.senate.gov/2022/7/wicker-praises-research-stem-education-provisions-in-new-chips-act.Google Scholar
van der Linden, Sander, Leiserowitz, Anthony, Rosenthal, Seth, and Maibach., Edward 2017. “Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change.” Global challenges 1(2): 1600008. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaughn, Lisa M. and Jacquez, Farrah. 2020. “Participatory Research Methods – Choice Points in the Research Process. Journal of Participatory Research Methods 1(1). https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.13244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werkmeister, William H. 1936. “The Second International Congress for the Unity of Science.” Philosophical Review 45(6): 593–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Science and the Public
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Science and the Public
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Science and the Public
Available formats
×