ABSTRACT
In this paper, I provide policymakers, who rely on science to address their missions, with two arguments for improving science for social benefits. I argue for a refined concept of social robustness that can distinguish socially appropriate cases of political reliance on science from inappropriate ones. Both of the constituents are essential for evaluating the social suitability of science-relevant policy or action. Using four cases of population control, I show that socially inappropriate political reliance on science can make science epistemically and socially harmful. Moreover, I argue that such an evaluation process should be supported by a political culture of mutual criticism within science and society. This demands freedom of expression and critical examination of science-relevant policy consequences in view of a sufficiently wide range of social value commitments. This paper suggests that the same considerations of social robustness and political culture of mutual criticism should be of general relevance for policymakers engaging in debates about science and values such as those regarding climate change.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful for the feedback from Jui-Hsin Fan, Yen-Tung Lee, Dr. Chia-Hua Lin, and Dr. Hsiang-Yun Chen on earlier drafts of this paper. Special thanks go to Li-Sheng Chen, Minea Gartzlaff, and Professor Martin Carrier for their detailed and constructive comments on this current manuscript.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Correction Statement
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Li-an Yu
Li-an Yu is a PhD student in philosophy at Bielefeld University.