PANEL 6 / SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY AND DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY: PHILOSOPHICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE MORAL AND POLITICAL ROLE OF SCIENCE
CONVENORS GIORGIO AIROLDI
All inquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected].
Contemporary science is often presented as empirically grounded, value-neutral, and
methodologically rigorous. Yet its conceptual frameworks frequently rest on soft logic:
ambiguous epistemic claims, idealized models, pragmatic shortcuts, and unexamined
assumptions. Moreover, science is shaped by who funds it, what gets published, and
which disciplines are prioritized, leading to a politicization of research agendas, often
without public awareness.
At the same time, science has come to play an increasingly prominent role in shaping
political agendas and informing both political and ethical decisions. Behind an
appearance of neutrality, science, when uncritically embedded within dominant power
structures, can serve oppressive ends. This is not a new phenomenon: historically,
scientific disciplines such as phrenology, evolutionary biology, and early anthropology
have been complicit in justifying colonialism, racism, and gender inequality. Today, the
extra-scientific use of scientific authority is widespread. Rather than simply providing
facts, science often frames problems, shaping what counts as a “solution”.
For instance, climate change is frequently framed in terms of carbon emissions and
technological fixes, sidelining deeper critiques of capitalism, overconsumption, and
global injustice. Similarly, scientific language can serve to naturalize political and social
norms, making them appear objective or inevitable, while concealing the value
judgments they contain. This can entrench inequality and suppress ethical debate.
In times of crisis (such as pandemics, climate emergencies, or energy shortages),
political decision-making is increasingly delegated to scientific or technical experts.
While this may lead to more informed policies, it can also depoliticize issues that merit
democratic deliberation and concentrate power in the hands of unelected authorities.
Scientific developments also often redefine core moral concepts, sometimes without
public reflection or societal debate. In animal ethics, for example, the rise of “sentience”
as the primary moral criterion has led to protections for some animals but not others --
based on limited and contested scientific consensus. Similarly, fields such as artificial
intelligence frequently rely on utilitarian models aimed at maximizing well-being or
minimizing harm. Although these models have practical value, they often oversimplify or
misrepresent complex cultural, emotional, and historical dimensions of ethical decision-
making.
The mechanisms and foundations of science are thus no longer confined to academic
circles. Beneath the surface, they subtly shape our legal systems, ethical frameworks,
and societal self-understanding. Policymakers and citizens alike are constantly
influenced by frameworks that are neither scientifically coherent nor politically neutral.
This panel aims to bring together scholars from diverse areas of philosophy to critically
examine the often-invisible impact of science on contemporary society — with special
attention to its epistemological, ethical, and political dimensions.
All inquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected].
Contemporary science is often presented as empirically grounded, value-neutral, and
methodologically rigorous. Yet its conceptual frameworks frequently rest on soft logic:
ambiguous epistemic claims, idealized models, pragmatic shortcuts, and unexamined
assumptions. Moreover, science is shaped by who funds it, what gets published, and
which disciplines are prioritized, leading to a politicization of research agendas, often
without public awareness.
At the same time, science has come to play an increasingly prominent role in shaping
political agendas and informing both political and ethical decisions. Behind an
appearance of neutrality, science, when uncritically embedded within dominant power
structures, can serve oppressive ends. This is not a new phenomenon: historically,
scientific disciplines such as phrenology, evolutionary biology, and early anthropology
have been complicit in justifying colonialism, racism, and gender inequality. Today, the
extra-scientific use of scientific authority is widespread. Rather than simply providing
facts, science often frames problems, shaping what counts as a “solution”.
For instance, climate change is frequently framed in terms of carbon emissions and
technological fixes, sidelining deeper critiques of capitalism, overconsumption, and
global injustice. Similarly, scientific language can serve to naturalize political and social
norms, making them appear objective or inevitable, while concealing the value
judgments they contain. This can entrench inequality and suppress ethical debate.
In times of crisis (such as pandemics, climate emergencies, or energy shortages),
political decision-making is increasingly delegated to scientific or technical experts.
While this may lead to more informed policies, it can also depoliticize issues that merit
democratic deliberation and concentrate power in the hands of unelected authorities.
Scientific developments also often redefine core moral concepts, sometimes without
public reflection or societal debate. In animal ethics, for example, the rise of “sentience”
as the primary moral criterion has led to protections for some animals but not others --
based on limited and contested scientific consensus. Similarly, fields such as artificial
intelligence frequently rely on utilitarian models aimed at maximizing well-being or
minimizing harm. Although these models have practical value, they often oversimplify or
misrepresent complex cultural, emotional, and historical dimensions of ethical decision-
making.
The mechanisms and foundations of science are thus no longer confined to academic
circles. Beneath the surface, they subtly shape our legal systems, ethical frameworks,
and societal self-understanding. Policymakers and citizens alike are constantly
influenced by frameworks that are neither scientifically coherent nor politically neutral.
This panel aims to bring together scholars from diverse areas of philosophy to critically
examine the often-invisible impact of science on contemporary society — with special
attention to its epistemological, ethical, and political dimensions.
