From epistemology to policy: reorienting philosophy courses for science students

Abstract

Philosophy of science has traditionally focused on the epistemological dimensions of scientific practice at the expense of the ethical and political questions scientists encounter when addressing questions of policy in advisory contexts. In this article, I will explore how an exclusive focus on epistemology and theoretical reason can function to reinforce common, yet flawed assumptions concerning the role of scientific knowledge in policy decision making when reproduced in philosophy courses for science students. In order to address this concern, I will argue that such courses should supplement the traditional focus on theoretical reason with an analysis of the practical reasoning employed by scientists in advisory contexts. Later sections of this paper outline a teaching strategy by which this can be achieved that consists of two steps: the first examines idealized examples of scientific advising in order to highlight the irreducible role played by moral reasoning in justifying policy recommendations. The second employs argument analysis to reveal implicit moral assumptions in actual advisory reports that form the basis for class discussion. This paper concludes by examining some of the wider benefits that can be expected from adopting such an approach.

Teaching philosophy of science that matters

“…More specifically, he shows that a traditional course component on Kuhn's notions of normal science, puzzle-solving, and scientific revolutions can be used as a stepping stone for reflecting on various kinds of innovation and creativity in science. Young (2022) argues for a more radical reorientation of philosophy of science teaching away from its traditional focus on theoretical reasoning and towards a concern with practical reasoning. In teaching science students in particular, the emphasis should be less on conceptual analysis and 'pure' epistemic issues and room should be made for reflecting on the uses of knowledge for and in policy environments.…”