Part of
Controversies and Interdisciplinarity: Beyond disciplinary fragmentation for a new knowledge modelEdited by Jens Allwood, Olga Pombo, Clara Renna and Giovanni Scarafile
[Controversies 16] 2020
► pp. 255–268
Edited by Jens Allwood, Olga Pombo, Clara Renna and Giovanni Scarafile
[Controversies 16] 2020
► pp. 255–268
Chapter 13Science and democracy
A complex relationship
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.
References (23)
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.
Bridger, S. (2015). Scientists at War: The Ethics of Cold War Weapons Research, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 
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.
Deleuze, G. (1990). Pourparler, Paris: Minuit.
Diderot, D. (1994). Oeuvres complètes de Diderot, Paris: Robert Laffont.
Ferry, L.; Pesron, J. P.; Renault, A. (1979). Philosophies de l’Université. L’Idéalisme Allemand et la Question de l’Université, Paris: Payot.
Foucault, M. (1966). Les Mots et les Choses, Paris: Galimard.
Habermas, J. (1962). Strukturwandel der oeffentlichkeit (port. transl.), Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro (1984).
(1968). Technick und Wissenschaft als Ideologia (port. transl.), Lisbon: Edições 70.
Hamburger, J. (ed.) (1991). L’Avenir de la Science, Paris: Dunod.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Die Frage nach dem Ding. (port. transl.), Lisbon: Edições. 70 (1993).
Husserl, E. (1936). Die Krisis der Europäischen Wissenschaften und die Transzentale Phänomenologie (french. transl.). Paris: Gallimard, 1989.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1979). La Condition Postmoderne. Rapport sur le Savoir. Paris: Minuit.
Merton, R. K. (1942). The normative Structure of Science, Chicago / London: Chicago University Press.
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.
(2011). Unidade da Ciência. Programa, Figuras e Metáforas. Lisbon: CFCUL / Gradiva (2nd. edition).
(2013). Tarefas da Epistemologia e da Filosofia da Ciência para o seculo XXI. Lisbon: CFCUL.
Popper, K. (1972). Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford at the Clarendon Press: Oxford University Press.
Sá da Costa, A.; Remy Freire, J. (1943). A Ciência e a Ordem Mundial. A Conferência de Londres de 1941. Lisbon: Cosmos.
Solla Price, D. J. (1963). Little Science, Big Science. New York / London: Columbia University Press.
Stengers, I. (1993). L’Invention des Sciences Modernes. Paris: Flammarion.
(1998). Le Politiche della Ragione. Lisbon: Edições 70.
Weinberg, A. M. (1961). Impact of Large-Scale Science on the United States. Science. 134 (3473), pp. 161–164.