TY - CHAP
T1 - Public trust in science
T2 - Exploring the idiosyncrasy-free ideal
AU - Boulicault, Marion
AU - Schroeder, S. Andrew
N1 - /
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - What makes science trustworthy to the public? This chapter examines one answer: the trustworthiness of science is based in part on its independence from the idiosyncratic values, wishes and interests of individual scientists. That is, science is trustworthy to the extent that following the scientific method would result in the same conclusions, regardless of the particular scientists involved. This “idiosyncrasy-free ideal” (IFI) for science has intuitive appeal and an important history, yet we don't think it has received the kind of detailed consideration it deserves. After briefly reviewing its history, we shed new light on the IFI by looking at how it features in philosophical debates concerning inductive risk. We focus on two recent proposals for avoiding idiosyncrasy when balancing inductive risk: that scientists should uniformly adopt high epistemic standards; and that scientists should uniformly adopt standards arrived at by democratic procedures. We end by proposing a hybrid of these two proposals and argue it provides a promising ground for public trust in science.
AB - What makes science trustworthy to the public? This chapter examines one answer: the trustworthiness of science is based in part on its independence from the idiosyncratic values, wishes and interests of individual scientists. That is, science is trustworthy to the extent that following the scientific method would result in the same conclusions, regardless of the particular scientists involved. This “idiosyncrasy-free ideal” (IFI) for science has intuitive appeal and an important history, yet we don't think it has received the kind of detailed consideration it deserves. After briefly reviewing its history, we shed new light on the IFI by looking at how it features in philosophical debates concerning inductive risk. We focus on two recent proposals for avoiding idiosyncrasy when balancing inductive risk: that scientists should uniformly adopt high epistemic standards; and that scientists should uniformly adopt standards arrived at by democratic procedures. We end by proposing a hybrid of these two proposals and argue it provides a promising ground for public trust in science.
UR - https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9781003029786/social-trust-kevin-vallier-michael-weber
U2 - 10.4324/9781003029786
DO - 10.4324/9781003029786
M3 - Chapter (peer-reviewed)
SN - 9780367458454
SN - 9780367768089
T3 - Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy
BT - Social Trust
A2 - Vallier, Kevin
A2 - Weber, Michael
PB - Routledge
CY - New York
ER -