"THE AUTHORITY OF SCIENCE," 8-10 APRIL 2011
4th Sydney-Tilburg conference on the philosophy of science
Sydney Centre for the Foundations of Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Tilburg Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
**Call for Papers current**. Send 500 word abstracts in PDF to Rod Taveira.
From climate change to the classification of illegal drugs the extent to which scientific opinion should prevail over other voices in determining public policy is hotly contested. What are the scope and limits of the authority of science? The founders of modern philosophy of science, including Sir Karl Popper and members of the Vienna Circle like Otto Neurath, saw it as part of their role to explain the authority of science. Scientific opinion deserves special authority for epistemological reasons – because of the nature of scientific method. A key motive for Popper’s ‘demarcation criterion’ distinguishing science from ‘pseudo-science’ was to restrict the authority of science to disciplines which used the scientific method as Popper understood it.
Since the 1970s the authority of science has been primarily a topic for history of science and sociology of science. These studies have taught us a great deal about how science gained its current, privileged position, and why that position has come under attack. But historical and sociological studies do not address the question of whether and when the authority of science is deserved. The aim of this conference is to direct the attention of philosophers of science and epistemologists back to this issue. What is it about the nature of science that confers epistemic authority on scientific opinion, and what are the scope and limits of that authority? Recent developments in philosophy of science offers new resources to address this question, and to address it in ways that have direct relevance to the practice of contemporary science and its application in public policy.
+++++
SOURCE/FONTE: University of Sydney
