Science is often viewed as objective and value-free, providing a neutral factual basis for decision-making. But how accurate is that picture? From deciding which research questions to pursue, to selecting methods, interpreting results, and communicating findings, societal and political values play a significant role in shaping science. For example, when investigating whether a substance is toxic or carcinogenic, scientists must set thresholds for what counts as “enough evidence.” Should they risk missing a harmful threat (false negative) or wrongly flagging something safe (false positive)? Such decisions cannot rely on scientific standards like accuracy alone.
If science is not value-free, this raises the question: which values can play a legitimate role in science? And should scientists alone make these decisions? One prominent position in philosophy of science argues that value judgments in science need to be democratically legitimized, so that they reflect the public interest or democratic aims. This might require more public participation in science as part of an effort to democratise science.
Using Reatch’s 20 Theses for a Science-Friendly Culture as a starting point, we’ll ask questions like: Should the societal values influencing science be determined democratically?
...
afficher plus
Science is often viewed as objective and value-free, providing a neutral factual basis for decision-making. But how accurate is that picture? From deciding which research questions to pursue, to selecting methods, interpreting results, and communicating findings, societal and political values play a significant role in shaping science. For example, when investigating whether a substance is toxic or carcinogenic, scientists must set thresholds for what counts as “enough evidence.” Should they risk missing a harmful threat (false negative) or wrongly flagging something safe (false positive)? Such decisions cannot rely on scientific standards like accuracy alone.
If science is not value-free, this raises the question: which values can play a legitimate role in science? And should scientists alone make these decisions? One prominent position in philosophy of science argues that value judgments in science need to be democratically legitimized, so that they reflect the public interest or democratic aims. This might require more public participation in science as part of an effort to democratise science.
Using Reatch’s 20 Theses for a Science-Friendly Culture as a starting point, we’ll ask questions like: Should the societal values influencing science be determined democratically? Or might this politicize science, compromising its autonomy and objectivity? What does it mean for trust in science if we acknowledge that science is value-laden?
We’ll be joined by two experts:
- Hannah Hilligardt (University of Bern), whose research combines philosophy of science with political philosophy to examine the role of values in science, particularly in feminist and environmental contexts.
- T.Y. Branch (Leibniz University Hannover), whose work critiques the lingering 'value-free ideal' in science. She argues that recognizing non-epistemic values—like social and political considerations—can help rebuild trust in science and enhance public engagement.
Bring your curiosity and appetite—no prior expertise required. Join us for an evening of lively discussion and delicious pizza!
The event will be moderated by Reatch board member Tanja Rechnitzer. If you would like to bring vegan cake or muffins for everyone, please contact Tanja directly and participate for free! The cost of the muffins will be reimbursed.
Fee: 15 CHF, supporter ticket: 25 CHF
Registration deadline: 10 February 2025
Languag: English and German
Reatch-Eventpage
afficher moins
