Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Transcript of איפה התכלס?
יעדמ עדי תודוא םיירוביצ
Graduate Program in Science, Technology and Society
Given the opportunity,
do scholars have
a professional obligation
to get involved in
public controversies over what should count as science?
role of epistemic authority and underdogs
in constituting epistemic peerhood
normatively suggesting that current societal problems urge those who are involved in public controversies regarding science, and especially scientific knowledge, to do so not as individual observers and commentators, but as responsible, unionized, expert communities.
Expert witness for the plaintiffs in
McLean v. Arkansas (1982).
Defense witness at
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005).
evaluate science according to the dominant
Argument for refraining from
participation in cases like McLean.
Ruse, Michael, ed. But is it Science?: The Philosophical Question in The Creation Evolution Controversy. New York: Prometheus Books, 1996.
Michigan State University
intelligent design is an updated form of creationism and not science
Because Genes are scientific knowledge, they could not be patented
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc (2013)
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)
Susan Haack. (2005). Trial and Error: The Supreme Court’s Philosophy of Science.
American Journal of Public Health
Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc (1993)
US Supreme Court ran together Karl Popper's and Carl Hempel's incompatible philosophies of science
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF 72 NOBEL LAUREATES, 17 STATE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE,
AND 7 OTHER SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS, IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES:
Creation science is composed of religious tenets
Jasanoff, S. (2009).
Science at the bar: Law, science, and technology in America.
Harvard University Press.
Lynch, Michael. (2009). Going public: a cautionary tale. Spontaneous Generations: A journal for the History and Philosophy of Science, 3(1), 213-219.
of the STS
of the Experts’
"providing an idea or theory that doesn’t conform to the standards of the day; that defies or contradicts the views of the so-called establishment" (Sassower 2014)
Sassower, Raphael. “Radical Public Intellectuals.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 4, no. 1 (2014): 57-63.
תולבוקמ תופקשהל דגנתמש ימ
Laudan's pessimistic approach
Laudan, L. (1982). Commentary: Science at the bar—causes for concern. Science, Technology & Human Values, 7(4), 16-19.
Building upon Chang's Scientific Pluralism
Bijker, W. E. (2003). The Need for Public Intellectuals: A Space for STS Pre-Presidential Address, Annual Meeting 2001, Cambridge, MA.
Science, Technology & Human Values
Quinn, Philip. 1984. The Philosopher of Science as Expert Witness. In
Science and Reality: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Science
, eds. James T. Cushing, Gary Gutting and C.F. Delany , 32–53. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Philip L. Quinn
scientific evidence presented to the court must be interpreted by the court as "generally accepted" by a meaningful segment of the associated scientific community
Frye v. United States (1980)
ןובשחב תחקל תיביטמרונ תוביוחמ
Next Step: Matching ideologies with Philosophical positions
Next step: "Populating" the positions
Interview: Prof. Boaz Sangero, Academic Center of Law & Business, Israel
and many more...!