Cover not available
Part of
Controversies and Interdisciplinarity: Beyond disciplinary fragmentation for a new knowledge model
Edited by Jens Allwood, Olga Pombo, Clara Renna and Giovanni Scarafile
[Controversies 16] 2020
► pp. 255–268

Chapter 13
Science and democracy

A complex relationship

| University of Lisbon

The article analyses the relationship between science and democracy on basis of a very specific point of view. Three arguments are put forward to defend that. In its historical origin, in its linguistic roots and in its institutional basis, science is (and continues to be) a democratic endeavor. The article very briefly discusses the decisive changings in the relation between science and political, economic and military power that took place during the XX century and stresses the cognitive relevance of a set of universal institutions which, all along the history of science, provide the conditions of possibility for science to exist and develop. Finally, even if today those universal institutions face big transformations, the possibility for science to remain a free democratic endeavor is questioned and argued.

Keywords: philosophy of science, science, democracy, cognitive universal institutions, historical a priori, big science, technoscience, citizen science
Published online: 15 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.16.13pom
References
Bacon, F.
(1620) Novum Organon. In The Works of Francis Bacon, edited by J. Spedding, London: Ellis and Heath, (1857–1874), IV, pp. 39–248.Google Scholar
Bridger, S.
(2015) Scientists at War: The Ethics of Cold War Weapons Research, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R.
(1938) “Logical Foundations of the Unity of Science“. In O. Neurath (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Chicago / Illionis: The University of Chicago Press, I, pp. 42–62.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G.
(1990) Pourparler, Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Diderot, D.
(1994) Oeuvres complètes de Diderot, Paris: Robert Laffont.Google Scholar
Ferry, L.; Pesron, J. P.; Renault, A.
(1979) Philosophies de l’Université. L’Idéalisme Allemand et la Question de l’Université, Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Foucault, M.
(1966) Les Mots et les Choses, Paris: Galimard.Google Scholar
Habermas, J.
(1962) Strukturwandel der oeffentlichkeit (port. transl.), Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro (1984).Google Scholar
(1968) Technick und Wissenschaft als Ideologia (port. transl.), Lisbon: Edições 70.Google Scholar
Hamburger, J.
(ed.) (1991) L’Avenir de la Science, Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M.
(1962) Die Frage nach dem Ding. (port. transl.), Lisbon: Edições. 70 (1993).Google Scholar
Husserl, E.
(1936) Die Krisis der Europäischen Wissenschaften und die Transzentale Phänomenologie (french. transl.). Paris: Gallimard 1989.Google Scholar
Lyotard, J.-F.
(1979) La Condition Postmoderne. Rapport sur le Savoir. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K.
(1942) The normative Structure of Science, Chicago / London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Pombo, O.
(2006) “Para uma História da Ideia de Enciclopédia”, in O. Pombo; A. Guerreiro; A. F. Alexandre. Enciclopédia e Hipertexto. Lisbon: Duarte Reis, pp. 194–251.Google Scholar
(2011) Unidade da Ciência. Programa, Figuras e Metáforas. Lisbon: CFCUL / Gradiva (2nd. edition).Google Scholar
(2013) Tarefas da Epistemologia e da Filosofia da Ciência para o seculo XXI. Lisbon: CFCUL.Google Scholar
Popper, K.
(1972) Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford at the Clarendon Press: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sá da Costa, A.; Remy Freire, J.
(1943) A Ciência e a Ordem Mundial. A Conferência de Londres de 1941. Lisbon: Cosmos.Google Scholar
Solla Price, D. J.
(1963) Little Science, Big Science. New York / London: Columbia University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stengers, I.
(1993) L’Invention des Sciences Modernes. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
(1998) Le Politiche della Ragione. Lisbon: Edições 70.Google Scholar
Weinberg, A. M.
(1961) Impact of Large-Scale Science on the United States. Science. 134 (3473), pp. 161–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar