WHOSE AUTHORITY, WHOSE AUTONOMY?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202461338Keywords:
authority, autonomy, scientific community, anarchism, ideology, individuality, responsibilityAbstract
The presentation of the tension between the autonomy and authority of the scientific community should be recalibrated as the tension between the authority of the scientific community and the autonomy of individuals within a democratic state. Limiting the authority of the scientific community necessarily limits its autonomy (and in this sense the “tension” dissipates). Whatever constraints are imposed on the scientific community by the state, they do not by themselves sanction individual disregard for state policies. The tension, then, is between the political authority of policy makers and the autonomy claimed by individuals. There should be no indiscriminate license for following one’s “gut feelings” when a state adheres to (scientific) expert recommendations that protect and save individual lives.
References
Berlin, I. “Two Concepts of Liberty,” in: Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1969, pp. 118–172.
Brown, M.J. “Against Expertise: A Lesson from Feyerabend’s Science in a Free Society?”, in: Schirr, K. & Shaw, J. (eds.) Interpreting Feyerabend: Critical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021, pp. 191–212.
Feyerabend, P. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. New York: Verso, 1975.
Feyerabend, P. Science in a Free Society. London: NLB, 1978.
Hegel, G.W.F. “Introduction,” to Lectures on The Philosophy of History. Trans. by J. Sibree. Kitchener, Ontario: Batoche Books, 1900.
Hegel, G.W.F. Philosophy of Right, trans. by T.M. Knox. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952.
Huuki, T. & Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. “Indigenous Cosmologies and Black Onto-Epistemologies in Gender and Education,” Gender and Education, 2023, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 119–128.
Laor, N. “Common Sense, Ethics and Psychiatry,” Psychiatry, 1984, vol. 47, no. 46, pp. 135–150.
Laor, N. “The Autonomy of the Mentally Ill: A Case Study in Individualistic Ethics,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1984, vol. 14, pp. 331–349.
Latour, B. “Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern,” Critical Inquiry, 2004, pp. 225–248.
Losurdo, D. Liberalism: A Counter-History. Trans. by G. Elliott. London and New York: Verso, 2014.
Merton, R. “The Normative Structure of Science,” in: Storer, N. (ed.) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973, pp. 254–266.
Mirowski, P. Science-Mart: Privatizing American Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011.
Polanyi, M. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962.
Popper, K.R. The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. I. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966.
Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.
Sassower, R. Knowledge without Expertise: On the Status of Scientists. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1993.
Sassower, R. Compromising the Ideals of Science. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
Schmitt, C. The Concept of the Political. Trans. by G. Schwab. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Wolff, R.P. In Defense of Anarchism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
