Hostname: page-component-669899f699-vbsjw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T20:43:09.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How to Not Secure Public Trust in Science: Representative Values Versus Polarization and Marginalization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 September 2023

Soazig Le Bihan
Soazig Le Bihan*
Affiliation:
University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The demise of the value-free ideal constitutes a threat to public trust in science. One proposal is that, whenever making value judgments, scientists rely only on democratic values. Because the influence of democratic values on scientific claims and recommendations is legitimate, public trust in science is warranted. I challenge this proposal. Appealing to democratic values will not suffice to secure trust because of at least two obstacles: polarization and marginalization.

Type
Symposia Paper
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 91 , Issue 5 , December 2024 , pp. 1128 - 1138
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abramowitz, Alan I., and Saunders, Kyle L.. 2008. “Is Polarization a Myth?” The Journal of Politics 70 (2):542–55. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608080493 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekoff, Marc (Ed.). 2019. Ignoring Nature No More: The Case for Compassionate Conservation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, Matthew. 2020. “Should I Do as I’m Told? Trust, Experts, and COVID-19.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 30 (3):243–63. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2020.0014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betz, Gregor. 2013. “In Defense of the Value Free Ideal.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3:207–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-012-0062-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bright, Liam K. 2018. “Du Bois’ Democratic Defense of the Value Free Ideal.” Synthese 195 (5):2227–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1333-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coghlan, Simon, and Cardilini, Adam P. 2022. “A Critical Review of the Compassionate Conservation Debate.” Conservation Biology 36 (1):e13760. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13760 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Creel, Scott. 2021. “Methods to Estimate Population Sizes of Wolves in Idaho and Montana. Comment FWS-HQ-ES-2021-0106-49075 on Proposed Rule: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 90-Day Finding for Two Petitions to List the Gray Wolf in the Western United States.” Federal Register: 2021–20088.Google Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C. 2017. A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190260804.001.0001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C. 2022. Values in Science. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009052597 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldpausch-Parker, Andrea M., Parker, Israel D., and Vidon, Elizabeth S.. 2017. “Privileging Consumptive Use: A Critique of Ideology, Power, and Discourse in the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.” Conservation & Society 15 (1):33–40. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.201395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, James. 2009. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199604432.001.0001 Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, S., and Andrews, K.. 2022. “Animal Culture and Animal Welfare.” Philosophy of Science 89 (5):1104–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2022.34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fullinwider, Robert. 2018. “Affirmative Action.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/affirmative-action/ Google Scholar
Gherghina, Sergiu, Mokre, Mokre, and Miscoiu, Sergiu. 2021. “Introduction: Democratic Deliberation and Under-represented Groups.” Political Studies Review 19 (2):159–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929920950931 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, Daniel. 2018. In the Spirit of Atatice. [Film] Kootenai and Salish Confederated Tribes. https://bisonrange.org/resources/videos/ Google Scholar
Hanez-López, Liam. 2014. Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heister, Anja. 2022. Beyond the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation: From Lethal to Compassionate Conservation. Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, Kristen. 2015. “Distinguishing between Legitimate and Illegitimate Values in Climate Modeling.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5:217–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-014-0105-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Reece. 2021. White Borders: The History of Race and Immigration in the United States from Chinese Exclusion to the Border Wall. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Kourany, Janet A. 2010. Philosophy of Science after Feminism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732623.001.0001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, Greg. 2021. “Does Democracy Require Value-Neutral Science? Analyzing the Legitimacy of Scientific Information in the Political Sphere.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 90:102–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.08.009 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marris, Emma. 2018. “A Good Story: Media Biases in Trophic Cascade Research in Yellowstone National Park,” edited by Kareiva, P. M., Marvier, M., and Silliman, B., 80–84. Effective Conservation Science: Data Not Dogma. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198808978.003.0012 Google Scholar
McIntyre, Rick. 2022. The Alpha Female Wolf: The Fierce Legacy of Yellowstone’s 06. Vancouver: Greystone Books Ltd.Google Scholar
Merchant, Carolyn. 2007. American Environmental History: An Introduction. New York, NY: Columbian University Press.Google Scholar
Preston, Christopher J. 2023. Tenacious Beasts: Wildlife Recoveries That Change How We Think about Animals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripple, William J., and Beschta, Robert L.. 2012. “Trophic Cascades in Yellowstone: The First 15 Years after Wolf Reintroduction.” Biological Conservation 145 (1):205–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RRC Associates and Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research. 2022. Greater Yellowstone Wildlife-Related Activity Valuation Study. https://www.wildlivelihoods.com/tourism-study Google Scholar
Saini, Angela. 2019. Superior: The Return of Race Science. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Schroeder, S. Andrew. 2021. “Democratic Values: A Better Foundation for Public Trust in Science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72 (2):545–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, S. Andrew. 2022. “Thinking about Values in Science: Ethical Versus Political Approaches.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 52 (3):246–55. https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2020.41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soulé, Michael E. 1985. “What Is Conservation Biology?” BioScience 35 (11):727–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310054 Google Scholar
Tasioulas, John (Ed.). 2020. The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Law (Cambridge Companions to Law). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316104439 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Lisa, Turkenburg, Emma, and Pow, James. 2023. “The Perceived Legitimacy of Deliberative Minipublics: Taking the Perspective of Polarized Citizens.” European Political Science Review 2023:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773922000649 Google Scholar
Washington, Harriet A. 2006. Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present. New York, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar