Integrating Politics and Philosophy of Science from Below

Room – Roscoe 2.9

Alejo Stark (University of Utah); Pedro Monque (University of North Carolina at Charlotte)

The relationship between science and politics has long been a subject of philosophical debate. Today, ideas about what science is and its epistemic value for society matter deeply for the world. We face a situation where scientific denialism can trigger an equally problematic scientific authoritarianism. More than ever, there is a need to integrate political philosophy and philosophy of science to put forward a compelling vision of how science can help us navigate our present ecological and political crises. The task ahead entails critiquing the colonial and capitalist values that guide scientific practice without losing science’s contributions to human flourishing.

The goal of this workshop is to consider what a compelling vision of science that tackles today’s crises might be. To this end, we will bring together political philosophers and philosophers of science. These two groups, we believe, do not dialogue enough. Yet, debates about “natural limits” and “planetary boundaries” that divide green and red thinkers (e.g. Kohei Saito, Matt Huber, Kate Raworth, Giorgos Kallis), or how a poor understanding of the philosophy of science keeps economics trapped in a dismal formalism (e.g. Clive Spash), and the way in which social movements and indigenous peoples have worked to reconceptualize science and propose better practices in light of colonial histories (Robin Kimmerer and Sandra Harding), these all show the relevance of philosophy of science for political philosophy and vice versa. Many of the pressing questions of today (be they about ecological limits, reproductive rights, or democratizing knowledge) require an integrated understanding of both political philosophy and philosophy of science. A naïve understanding of science can be just as dangerous to political proposals as a naïve understanding of politics is to those concerned with defending science’s epistemological status today.

Both of us (Alejo Stark and Pedro Monque) work at the intersection of political philosophy and philosophy of science. Stark has worked with Zapatista communities in Chiapas, Mexico, to show that they do not reject scientific knowledge or see it as inevitably dominating. Monque works with environmental activists in Venezuela and asks how novel concepts from Latin American social movements (e.g. extractivism) enable a different diagnosis of the environmental crisis. We recently collaborated on a panel for the History of Science Society that confirmed to us the fruitfulness of discussing “political philosophy of science from below,” especially from a Latin American perspective. We want to continue this conversation but expand our focus to anyone interested in envisioning a compelling vision for science given today’s challenges.

Some questions: (1) What is the role of the sciences in struggles for emancipation and in addressing our current political and ecological crises? (2) How have activists, social movements, and indigenous peoples theorized the role played by the sciences in their domination? (3) Which debates today suffer the most from a lack of awareness about the history and philosophy of science? And (4) How might an integrated understanding of political philosophy and philosophy of science help us to articulate a non-dominating vision of science and its epistemological status?