Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-4wdfl Total loading time: 0.21 Render date: 2022-07-02T23:37:25.968Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

A Framework for Analyzing Broadly Engaged Philosophy of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Abstract

Philosophers of science are increasingly interested in engaging with scientific communities, policy makers, and members of the public; however, the nature of this engagement has not been systematically examined. Instead of delineating a specific kind of engaged philosophy of science, as previous accounts have done, this article draws on literature from outside the discipline to develop a framework for analyzing different forms of broadly engaged philosophy of science according to two key dimensions: social interaction and epistemic integration. Clarifying the many forms of engagement available to philosophers of science can advance future scholarship on engagement and promote more strategic engagement efforts.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright 2021 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved.

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.)

References

Bergmann, Matthias, Klein, Julie Thompson, and Faust, Ronald C. 2012. Methods for Transdisciplinary Research: A Primer for Practice. New York: Campus.Google Scholar
Biddle, Justin. 2013. “Institutionalizing Dissent: A Proposal for an Adversarial System of Pharmaceutical Research.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 23 (4): 325–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briggle, Adam. 2012a. “It’s Time to Frack the Innovation System: What the History of Fracking Tells Us about Our Short-Sighted R&D System.” Slate, April 11. .Google Scholar
Briggle, Adam. 2012b. “The Religiosity of the Fracking Debate.” Science Progress, September 6. .Google Scholar
Briggle, Adam. 2015. A Field Philosopher’s Guide to Fracking: How One Texas Town Stood Up to Big Oil and Gas. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
Brister, Evelyn, and Robert Frodeman, eds. 2020. Guide to Field Philosophy: Case Studies and Practical Strategies. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Matthew J. 2020. Science and Moral Imagination: A New Ideal for Values and Science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabrese, Edward J., and Baldwin, Linda A. 2001. “Hormesis: U-Shaped Dose Responses and Their Centrality in Toxicology.” Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 22 (6): 285–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cartieri, Francis, and Potochnik, Angela. 2014. “Toward Philosophy of Science’s Social Engagement.” Erkenntnis 79:901–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavalier, Darlene, and Kennedy, Eric B., eds. 2016. The Rightful Place of Science: Citizen Science. Tempe: Consortium of Science, Policy, and Outcomes.Google Scholar
Chang, Hasok. 2007. Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Doberneck, Diane, Glass, Chris, and Schweitzer, John. 2011. “Beyond Activity, Place, and Partner: How Publicly Engaged Scholarship Varies by Intensity of Activity and Degree of Engagement.” Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship 4 (2): 1828.Google Scholar
Dockry, Michael J., Hall, Katherine, Lopik, William Van, and Caldwell, Christopher M. 2016. “Sustainable Development Education, Practice, and Research: An Indigenous Model of Sustainable Development at the College of Menominee Nation, Keshena, WI, USA.” Sustainability Science 11 (1): 127–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotson, Kristie. 2015. “Philosophy from the Position of Service.” Philosopher, January 9. .Google Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2016. “A History of the PSA before 1970.” Philosophy of Science Association. .Google Scholar
Eigenbrode, Sanford D., et al. 2007. “Employing Philosophical Dialogue in Collaborative Science.” BioScience 57 (1): 5564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C. 2012. “Epistemic and Methodological Iteration in Scientific Research.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 43 (2): 376–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C. 2017. A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C., and Resnik, David B. 2019. “Making Open Science Work for Science and Society.” Environmental Health Perspectives 127 (7): 075002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliott, Kevin C., and Rosenberg, Jon. 2019. “Philosophical Foundations for Citizen Science.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 4 (1): 9.Google Scholar
Fehr, Carla, and Plaisance, Kathryn S. 2010. “Socially Relevant Philosophy of Science: An Introduction.” Synthese 177 (3): 301–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández Pinto, Manuela, and Hicks, Daniel J. 2019. “Legitimizing Values in Regulatory Science.” Environmental Health Perspectives 127 (3): 035001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frodeman, Robert. 2008. “Redefining Ecological Ethics: Science, Policy, and Philosophy at Cape Horn.” Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (4): 597610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frodeman, Robert, and Briggle, Adam. 2016. Socrates Tenured: The Institutions of 21st-Century Philosophy. London: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Frodeman, Robert, Klein, Julie Thompson, and Pacheco, Roberto C. S., eds. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Don. 2009. “Better Red than Dead: Putting an End to the Social Irrelevance of Postwar Philosophy of Science.” Science and Education 18 (2): 199220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katikireddi, S. Vittal, and Valles, Sean A. 2015. “Coupled Ethical-Epistemic Analysis of Public Health Research and Practice: Categorizing Variables to Improve Population Health and Equity.” American Journal of Public Health 105 (1): e36e42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, Eric B. 2019. “Why They’ve Immersed: A Framework for Understanding and Attending to Motivational Differences among Interactional Experts.” In The Third Wave in Science and Technology Studies: Future Research Directions on Expertise and Experience, ed. Caudill, David S., Conley, Shannon N., Gorman, Michael E., and Weinel, Martin, 217–34. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Klein, Julie Thompson. 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Kourany, Janet A. 2010. Philosophy of Science after Feminism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotrecchiano, Gaetano R. 2013. “The Science-of-Team-Science, Transdisciplinary Capacity, and Shifting Paradigms for Translational Professionals.” Journal of Translational Medicine and Epidemiology 1 (1): 1001–9.Google Scholar
Lotrecchiano, Gaetano R., and Misra, Shalini. 2020. “Transdisciplinary Knowledge Producing Teams: Team Processes, Knowledge, Skills, and Competencies.” In Communication in Transdisciplinary Teams, ed. Lotrecchiano, Gaetano R. and Misra, Shalini, 1954. Santa Rosa, CA: Informing Science.Google Scholar
McLevey, John, Graham, Alexander V., McIlroy-Young, Reid, Browne, Pierson, and Plaisance, Kathryn S. 2018. “Interdisciplinarity and Insularity in the Diffusion of Knowledge: An Analysis of Disciplinary Boundaries between Philosophy of Science and the Sciences.” Scientometrics 117 (1): 331–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Malley, Maureen A., and Soyer, Orkun S. 2012. “The Roles of Integration in Molecular Systems Biology.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science C 43 (1): 5868.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Rourke, Michael, and Crowley, Stephen J. 2013. “Philosophical Intervention and Cross-Disciplinary Science: The Story of the Toolbox Project.” Synthese 190 (11): 1937–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Rourke, Michael, Crowley, Stephen J., and Gonnerman, Chad. 2016. “On the Nature of Cross-Disciplinary Integration: A Philosophical Framework.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science C 56:6270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Rourke, Michael, Crowley, Stephen J., Laursen, Bethany, Robinson, Brian, and Vasko, Stephanie E. 2019. “Disciplinary Diversity in Teams: Integrative Approaches from Unidisciplinarity to Transdisciplinarity.” In Strategies for Team Science Success, ed. Hall, Kara L., Vogel, Amanda L., and Croyle, Robert T., 2146. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plaisance, Kathryn S. 2020. “The Benefits of Acquiring Interactional Expertise: Why (Some) Philosophers of Science Should Engage Scientific Communities.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 83:5362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plaisance, Kathryn S., and Carla Fehr, eds. 2010. “Making Philosophy of Science More Socially Relevant.” Special issue, Synthese 177 (3): 301492.Google Scholar
Plaisance, Kathryn S., Graham, Alexander V., McLevey, John, and Michaud, Jay. 2021. “Show Me the Numbers: A Quantitative Portrait of the Attitudes, Experiences, and Values of Philosophers of Science Regarding Broadly Engaged Work.” Synthese 198:4603–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plaisance, Kathryn S., Michaud, Jay, and McLevey, John. 2021. “Pathways of Influence: Understanding the Impact of Philosophy of Science in Scientific Domains.” Synthese. .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Sarah S. 2010. “Feminist Philosophy of Science: History, Contributions, and Challenges.” Synthese 177 (3): 337–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saltmarsh, John, Hartley, Matthew, and Clayton, Patty. 2009. Democratic Engagement white paper, New England Resource Center for Higher Education. .Google Scholar
Schienke, Erich W., Baum, Seth D., Tuana, Nancy, Davis, Kenneth J., and Keller, Klaus. 2011. “Intrinsic Ethics Regarding Integrated Assessment Models for Climate Management.” Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (3): 503–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shrader-Frechette, Kristin. 2008. “Ideological Toxicology: Invalid Logic, Science, Ethics about Low-Dose Pollution.” Human and Experimental Toxicology 27 (8): 647–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shrader-Frechette, Kristin. 2010. “Conceptual Analysis and Special-Interest Science: Toxicology and the Case of Edward Calabrese.” Synthese 177 (3): 449–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, Kristin. 2014. Tainted: How Philosophy of Science Can Expose Bad Science. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanton, Timothy K. 2008. “New Times Demand New Scholarship: Opportunities and Challenges for Civic Engagement at Research Universities.” Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 3 (1): 1942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiberius, Valerie. 2017. “The Well-Being of Philosophy.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 91:6586.Google Scholar
Tuana, Nancy. 2017. “Understanding Coupled Ethical-Epistemic Issues Relevant to Climate Modeling and Decision Support Science.” In Scientific Integrity and Ethics in the Geosciences, ed. Gundersen, Linda C., 155–73. Hoboken., NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Vaesen, Krist, and Katzav, Joel. 2019. “The National Science Foundation and Philosophy of Science’s Withdrawal from Social Concerns.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 78:7382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waters, C. Kenneth. 1994. “Genes Made Molecular.” Philosophy of Science 61 (2): 163–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whyte, Kyle P., and Crease, Robert P. 2010. “Trust, Expertise, and the Philosophy of Science.” Synthese 177 (3): 411–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whyte, Kyle P., Dockry, Michael, Baule, William, and Fellman, Dean. 2014. “Supporting Tribal Climate Change Adaptation Planning through Community Participatory Strategic Foresight Scenario Development.” Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments Center. .Google Scholar
3
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A Framework for Analyzing Broadly Engaged Philosophy of Science
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

A Framework for Analyzing Broadly Engaged Philosophy of Science
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

A Framework for Analyzing Broadly Engaged Philosophy of Science
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *