Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:48:11.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Well-Ordered Science’s Basic Problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Cristian Larroulet Philippi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kitcher has proposed an ideal-theory account—well-ordered science (WOS)—of the collective good that science’s research agenda should promote. Against criticism regarding WOS’s action guidance, Kitcher has advised critics not to confuse substantive ideals and the ways to arrive at them, and he has defended WOS as a necessary and useful ideal for science policy. I provide a distinction between two types of ideal theories that helps clarifying WOS’s elusive nature. I use this distinction to argue that the action-guidance problem that WOS faces remains even under the aims/means distinction because the WOS’s failure is more basic than critics have suggested.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 87 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 365 - 375
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

†

This is a descendent of the manuscript “Well-Ordered Science: Ideals and Procedures.” Earlier versions of this article were presented both at the 8th Annual Values in Medicine, Science, and Technology Conference (University of Texas at Dallas, 2018), and at the 26th Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (Seattle, 2018). Thanks to Katharina Bernhard, Alison Jaggar, Andrew Schroeder, Jamie Shaw, Katie Steele, and an anonymous referee for helpful comments.

References

Douglas, Heather. 2013. Review of Science in a Democratic Society, by Philip Kitcher. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64:901–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández Pinto, Manuela. 2015. “Commercialization and the Limits of Well-Ordered Science.” Perspectives on Science 23:173–91Google Scholar
Flory, James, and Kitcher, Philip. 2004. “Global Health and the Scientific Research Agenda.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 32:36–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodin, Robert. 2007. “Enfranchising all Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 35:40–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, Johan. 2018. “The Difference Principle Would Not Be Chosen Behind the Veil of Ignorance.” Journal of Philosophy 115:588–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggar, Alison. 1993. “Taking Consent Seriously.” In The Applied Ethics Reader, ed. Winkler, Earl and Coombs, Jerrold, 69–86. Oxford: Blackwell.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
Keren, Arnon. 2015. “Science and Informed, Counterfactual, Democratic Consent.” Philosophy of Science 82:1284–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2002. “Reply to Helen Longino.” Philosophy of Science 69:569–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2011. Science in a Democratic Society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 2002. “Science and the Common Good: Thoughts on Philip Kitcher’s Science, Truth, and Democracy.” Philosophy of Science 69:560–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Charles. 2005. “Ideal Theory as Ideology.” Hypatia 20:165–84.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reiss, Julian, and Kitcher, Philip. 2009. “Biomedical Research, Neglected Diseases, and Well-Ordered Science.” Theoria 24:263–82.Google Scholar
Robeyns, Ingrid. 2008. “Ideal Theory in Theory and Practice.” Social Theory and Practice 34:341–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 2009. The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, Jamie. 2018. “Feyerabend’s Well-Ordered Science: How an Anarchist Distributes Funds.” Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-02026-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, A. John. 2010. “Ideal and Nonideal Theory.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 38:5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentini, Laura. 2009. “On the Apparent Paradox of Ideal Theory.” Journal of Political Philosophy 17:332–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, Alvin. 1963. “Criteria for Scientific Choice.” Minerva 1:159–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, David. 2012. “Prescribing Institutions without Ideal Theory.” Journal of Political Philosophy 20:45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar