Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:45:31.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Science and Informed, Counterfactual, Democratic Consent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Arnon Keren
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On many science-related policy questions, the public is unable to make informed decisions, because of its inability to make use of knowledge obtained by scientists. Philip Kitcher and James Fishkin have both suggested therefore that on certain science-related issues, public policy should not be decided on by actual democratic vote, but should instead conform to the public’s counterfactual informed democratic decision (CIDD). Indeed, this suggestion underlies Kitcher’s specification of an ideal of a well-ordered science. This article argues that this suggestion misconstrues the normative significance of CIDDs. At most, CIDDs might have epistemic significance, but no authority or legitimizing force.

Type
Social Sciences and Policy
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 82 , Issue 5 , December 2015 , pp. 1284 - 1295
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

Footnotes

†

Work on this paper was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 714/12). For helpful comments, I am grateful to audiences at the PSA 2014, at a conference on the Special Role of Science in Liberal Democracy at the University of Copenhagen, and at colloquia at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and at Tel Aviv University, and to Aliza Avraham, Marcello Di Bello, David Enoch, Alon Harel, Martin Kusch, Boaz Miller, Assaf Sharon, and Daniel Statman.

References

Brock, Dan W. 1994. “Good Decisionmaking for Incompetent Patients.” Hastings Center Report 24:S8–S11.10.2307/3563473CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, David. 2007. “Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News.” Philosophical Review 116:187–217.10.1215/00318108-2006-035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiano, Thomas. 2015. “Democracy.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/democracy/.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1975. “The Original Position.” In Reading Rawls, ed. Daniels, Norman, 16–62. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Fishkin, James. 2002. “Deliberative Democracy.” In The Blackwell Guide to Social and Political Philosophy, ed. Simon, Robert L., 221–38. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Simon, Robert L. 2009. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Flory, James H., and Kitcher, Philip. 2004. “Global Health and the Scientific Research Agenda.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 32 (1): 36–65.10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00004.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, Thomas. 2005. “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement.” Oxford Studies in Epistemology 1:167–96.Google Scholar
Keren, Arnon. 2013. “Kitcher on Well-Ordered Science: Should Science Be Measured against the Outcomes of Ideal Democratic Deliberation?” Theoria 28:233–44.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0195145836.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip 2007. “Scientific Research: Who Should Govern?” Nanoethics 1:177–84.10.1007/s11569-007-0019-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip 2011. Science in a Democratic Society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1861/1861. Considerations on Representative Government. Repr. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 2001. “Deliberative Democracy and the Discursive Dilemma.” Philosophical Issues 11 (1): 268–99.10.1111/j.1758-2237.2001.tb00047.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar