Science, Truth, and Democracy (Oxford Studies in the Philosophy of Science)

Rating:
Summary: What the world needs now is this book.
Review: I am impressed with Kitcher, actually stunned. This book needs to be read by every politician in office. The fact that our government does in fact function much better than middle east gov's is due to separation of church and state, but now what we need is to really incorporate that idea, especially with a little more truth. The science of life is accepted as Kitcher mentions as irrefutable by all, but the truth of it is jet lag, not really here. I say yes, read this book, to anyone. I want to recommend another book very similar to this but in entertaining format which puts this subject across well, SB 1 or God By Karl Maddox.

Rating:
Summary: Waving a flag and kissing a baby...
Review: Kitcher oozes reasonableness, and so I reach for my wallet. If the best course of action was always to split the difference between two extremes, then Kitcher would be the Solomon of science policy. Unfortunately, divisions in the real world do not correspond to the poles of philosophical disagreements. This is one for the seminar room, not the corridors of power.

Rating:
Summary: Well written, engaging, but with a fundamental oversight
Review: Philip Kitcher again shines as a well informed philosopher of science. This book can be regarded as a sequel to his magnum opus _The Advancement of Science_. It deals with the relativists and antirealists quite well, though does presuppose some familiarity with these debates.

However, I find that Kitcher's new position on the nature of science and its relations to society at large suffers from an apparently glaring oversight. He tells us that those who have a stake in the outcome of scientific research should have a say in how it should proceed, be funded, etc.

Since we have long known (and Kitcher himself is aware of the fact) that the outcome of basic scientific research is unknown, i.e. we do not know what position (if any) it will affect, we cannot realistically adopt Kitcher's suggestion. His proposal is emmently sensible in technology, where the goal is not to know but to change or prevent change. But the history of science shows that the proposal of making basic science sensitive to people's interests _that_ way will not work. Further, it is vague, even if it could be done: how do we determine the effect? Christian conservatives like Philip Johnson would curtail or slow research into evolution because he feels it is socially undermining; biologists and
other scientists (rightly) regard this as distressing. Science *should* puncture illusions, as Kitcher points out happens. On the other hand, if the "say" is simply to be a sort of "gripe session" where people can say their piece to scientists, this is a recipe for squabble, or worse, just ignoring people, which is the (perceived) problem in the management of science now.
(I think actually that the insistence from some that science is alienating because it is undemocratic is wrong, but that's another story.)

One should not read this book, however, without a grasp of some of the issues this review sort of brings up. As another reviewer said it is sort of for the academic. I wish that weren't so: but sometimes we academics have to debate amongst ourselves a bit first, before popularizations come out. Of course this is just some of the same concerns again ... and around we go.