PANEL 17 / SCIENCE DENIALISM IN PUBLIC DEBATE. THE DELICATE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE AND DEMOCRACY
CONVENORS: FRANCESCA PONGIGLIONE and ROBERTA SALA (University Vita-Salute San Raffaele)
All enquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected].
Science denialism is not only a topic of purely epistemological interest – it is also, and perhaps primarily, a topic of ethical and political interest. The denial of scientific evidence (e.g. the spherical shape of the Earth, the existence of anthropogenic climate change) is often accompanied by fallacies in reasoning or in the belief-formation process, or by epistemic flaws.
The greatest problems, however, arise in the practical dimension. In liberal-democratic contexts, every voice has the dignity of expression in the public forum; it is thus urgent to reflect on what space can be given to the defense and dissemination of science denialism.
In fact, giving space in the public debate to those who, for example, deny anthropogenic climate change, or raise doubts about the effectiveness of vaccines as a tool to eradicate the spread of infectious diseases, presents some significant risks for contemporary democracies. First, it erodes trust in the institutions that have based important political decisions on the scientific evidence that deniers dispute. Second, it spreads uncertainty among the population on sensitive issues, which in turn generates paralysis or conflict.
While we might be tempted to argue that science denialism should simply be excluded from public debate, leaving no room for deniers to spread anti-scientific beliefs, this strategy raises numerous questions, given by the very nature of the scientific evidence that deniers dispute and by the principles that underpin liberal-democratic institutions. Democracy does not seem compatible with the proposal to silence certain voices, however unreasonable they may be.
We also need to reflect on what ordinary people expect from scientists. Science often expresses itself in statistical terms, estimating the probability that a certain event will occur as a consequence of other events or phenomena. The mere adoption of data of this type spreads the false belief that certain causal relationships are the subject of a debate among scientists, or in any case in need of further confirmation, and that they cannot be taken for granted. This contributes to generating a climate of doubt and uncertainty when it is necessary to make political decisions that enjoy broad consensus.
This panel therefore aims to delve into the delicate relationship between science and citizenship, examining, in particular, the public and political space that denialist theses can claim in liberal-democratic contexts.
All enquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected].
Science denialism is not only a topic of purely epistemological interest – it is also, and perhaps primarily, a topic of ethical and political interest. The denial of scientific evidence (e.g. the spherical shape of the Earth, the existence of anthropogenic climate change) is often accompanied by fallacies in reasoning or in the belief-formation process, or by epistemic flaws.
The greatest problems, however, arise in the practical dimension. In liberal-democratic contexts, every voice has the dignity of expression in the public forum; it is thus urgent to reflect on what space can be given to the defense and dissemination of science denialism.
In fact, giving space in the public debate to those who, for example, deny anthropogenic climate change, or raise doubts about the effectiveness of vaccines as a tool to eradicate the spread of infectious diseases, presents some significant risks for contemporary democracies. First, it erodes trust in the institutions that have based important political decisions on the scientific evidence that deniers dispute. Second, it spreads uncertainty among the population on sensitive issues, which in turn generates paralysis or conflict.
While we might be tempted to argue that science denialism should simply be excluded from public debate, leaving no room for deniers to spread anti-scientific beliefs, this strategy raises numerous questions, given by the very nature of the scientific evidence that deniers dispute and by the principles that underpin liberal-democratic institutions. Democracy does not seem compatible with the proposal to silence certain voices, however unreasonable they may be.
We also need to reflect on what ordinary people expect from scientists. Science often expresses itself in statistical terms, estimating the probability that a certain event will occur as a consequence of other events or phenomena. The mere adoption of data of this type spreads the false belief that certain causal relationships are the subject of a debate among scientists, or in any case in need of further confirmation, and that they cannot be taken for granted. This contributes to generating a climate of doubt and uncertainty when it is necessary to make political decisions that enjoy broad consensus.
This panel therefore aims to delve into the delicate relationship between science and citizenship, examining, in particular, the public and political space that denialist theses can claim in liberal-democratic contexts.
