Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Philip Kitcher allows us to know the limits of permissible dissent from consensus science


Here, in a November 30 lecture, Darwin defender Philip Kitcher will set out the rules by which we may live:

Royal Institute of Philosophy Lecture

This lecture will be held in the Birley Room, Hatfield College. Refreshments will be served from 5pm with the talk commencing at 5:30pm

Title: Dissent


Many people who have thought about scientific inquiry and about public debate have supposed that dissent is a valuable thing. In this lecture, I attempt to show that there are serious problems about dissent, problems that arise today with respect to some of the most urgent issues human beings face (for example, climate change and world hunger). I begin with the apparently plausible idea that some balance has to be struck between the fostering of dissent and the reliance on consensus. Once that idea is cautiously framed, and attention is given to the various groups within which consensus or dissent might occur, it becomes evident that the problem is multi-faceted. In part it arises from the friction between two important institutions (the system of public knowledge and the framework of economic and commercial activities). In part it also arises from the credit economy that helps to ensure valuable cognitive diversity within the sciences. I argue that the problem should be conceived in terms of this friction, and that the roles of the scientist and of the dissenter need to be more carefully scrutinized and defined. Further, popular slogans about democracy and about freedom of public debate need to be rethought. I conclude by suggesting that philosophy (and philosophy of science) today should renew the project of classical pragmatism.

Do these people happen to notice when things are crashing around their ears?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Oh brother. The establishment is discrediting criticism of its conclusions. The reason criticism is a right thing for society is because truth is the objective. If truth can't take the criticism then it ain't true or its defenders are incompetent. How lame to question fre men about their questioning of unlikely things like evolution or man made global warming. They just want their way. Robert Byers
It should suffice to note that "consensus" is more typically a political and rhetorical term than a scientific one. Truth or warrant are mediated by correspondence to actual reality and evidence that points that way, not by a majority vote. That's why Einstein said -- in response to a platoon of denunciations promoted by the Nazi party -- that just one opponent (armed with solid facts and good reasoning) would have been enough to overturn his Theory of Relativity. kairosfocus
The roles of the scientist and of the dissenter need to be more carefully scrutinized and defined.
0_o So it's one or the other then? englishmaninistanbul

Leave a Reply