Cover not available
Part of
Science and Democracy: Controversies and conflicts
Edited by Pierluigi Barrotta and Giovanni Scarafile
[Controversies 13] 2018
► pp. 53–70

Chapter 3
Rethinking the notion of public

A pragmatist account

Recent times have witnessed that democracy and science may easily be in conflict. The goal of the paper is to reframe the issue of the relations between democracy and science in a way that makes it possible to preserve the distinction between the two, while rejecting the pessimistic view that their conflict is harmful. To achieve this goal, I will refine Dewey’s concept of public so as to develop a semantic interpretation of it grounded on the notion of articulation. My proposal is to conceive of the public as a logical space not reducible to that of science, in which the truths discovered by scientists are renegotiated through a process of interaction between the experts and the citizens.
Keywords: philosophy of expertise, pragmatism, technical democracy, science, public, articulation
Article outline
  • 1.Dewey’s conception of public
  • 2.Toward a pragmatist philosophy of expertise: The ontology of the public
  • 3.The autonomy of the public and the role of experts
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.13.05gro
References (17)
References
Barrotta, P. (2016). Scienza e democrazia. Verità, fatti e valori in una prospettiva pragmatista. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Brown, M. (2009). Science in Democracy. Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. M. and Evans, R. (2002). The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Science, 32, 2, 235–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and Its Problems. In J. A. Boydston, Later Works of John Dewey, Vol. 2 1925–27 (pp.235–372). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the Known. In J. A. Boydston, Later Works of John Dewey, Vol. 16 1949–52 (pp.1–279). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (1995). Impure Science. Aids, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Frega, R. (2017). The Normativity of Democracy. European Journal of Political Theory, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Gronda, R. (2017). Mezzi della ragione: pragmatismo e tecnologia. In M. Negrotti (Ed.), Uomini e macchine (pp.73–90). Roma: Armando.Google Scholar
(2015a). What Does China Mean for Pragmatism? A Philosophical Interpretation of Dewey’s Sojourn in China (1919–1921). European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy , Vol. 7 No. 2, 45–70.Google Scholar
(2015b). Normativity and Objectivity: The Semantic Nature of Objects and the Potentiality of Nature. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, Vol. 7 No. 1, 115–129.Google Scholar
Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Levi, I. (2010). Dewey’s Logic of Inquiry. In M. Cochran (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Dewey (pp.80–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
(1925). The Phantom Public. Piscataway: Transactions Publishers.Google Scholar
Misak, C. (2004). C. S. Peirce on Vital Matters. In C. Misak (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Peirce (pp.150–174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1992). The Cambridge Conferences Lectures of 1898. In K. L. Ketner (Ed.), Reasoning and the Logic of Things (pp.105–268). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (1996). May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, Environment & Modernity. Towards a New Ecology (pp.44–83). London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Barrotta, Pierluigi & Roberto Gronda
2020. Epistemic Inequality and the Grounds of Trust in Scientific Experts. In Trust [Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, 54], ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.