1 Ethan Smestad Bruce Milem Philosophy of Natural Science May 14th, 2013 Chimerical Democracy: A Response to Kitchers Well-Ordered

Science

In our day & age, the task of a philosopher of science is a heavy burden. It becomes his of her endeavor to propose not only what has made science what it is, but what we should strive for with it. Considering all of the foggy concerns of those participating in science, as well as the vast benefactors of its achievements, it becomes a sensitive and tense struggle to try and decide where science should go next, and what it should aim for. We can never (nor should we) expect the disagreements over sciences direction to cease, because they are a fundamental character to the type of critical thinking science (as well as philosophy) employs. As always, things could be better. Philip Kitcher proposes Well-Ordered Science (WOS) as a framework not for the direction science should take, but a system intended to create the most optimal democracy possible in science. The idea is that there is no particular direction that science should objectively travel towards; science is a practical tool of service for the benefit and improved happiness of mankind as a whole, and so its direction should be the most optimal choice of humanity, reached by rational and open debate among all its contingents. Is this well-ordered science a fine ideal of what science should strive for? Certainly, and while Kitcher has very fine and reasonable proposals, he can admit as much that his solution is not fool-proof, nor anywhere near contemporary actuality as of yet. This transition between the construction of a philosophical framework

2 my principal taskand the crafting of political policies and decision is, I admit, radically incomplete. (200) Since his WOS is dependant on the values of the society, Id like to present what I think are the true machinations at work for the future of our sciences today. The Internet generation, with its universality, anonymity, and amoral approach to information, is evolving into what I have termed Chimerical Democracy: A world-wide forum where any idea or experiment can find a supportive community and able resources, so that we need not restrict the worlds scientific endeavors into those projects only that have the majoritys approval. Considering the future of our modern world, we will envision a collapse of moral center, an abandonment of conservatism, and a world-wide embrace of adventurous experimentation. It is a vision that scares us now, but the world of tomorrow always brings about an amount of tenacious anomaly. We must begin by considering what arguments and theses underline Kitchers WOS. As a philosopher of science, Kitcher is tackling common questions among the public about science that have not been given much of an answer, and so in this respect, I admire his own daring attempts at creating a democratic world for science. Kitcher doesnt need to tangle with weighty metaphysics or deep confusion(xii). Modest Realism in science allows us to trust in the truth of our findings based simply on how successful they are in application. There is no way to measure our picture of reality against the notion of whats really there. Kitcher doesnt believe in Pure Science. He doesnt believe there is one ideal map to realityit is only a myth. However, A rival vision proposes that what counts as significant science must be understood in context of a particular group with

3 particular practical interests and with a particular history.(61) As has been indicated by my earlier essay (on Kuhn & Oyama), this is a point I can agree to about the value of science: it is completely relative to the demands and desires of a community. From a certain light, Kitcher can be seen as simply giving up on the venture of pure science, because he sees it as either futile or useless. He chooses an alternative theory for sciences goals because he sees it as more useful, especially for the purposes of his WOS. The scientists and the communities they belong to will have a series of questions that they want answeredthere is no question about what is objectively valuable for pursuit. Instead, we are asked to consider all of the factors that go into our desires for inquiry: What lines of inquiry are the various groups in a society (the scientists, businessmen, politicians, civilians of varying conditions) interested in having pursued? What different proposals from the scientists are available for each line of inquiry? What resources do they demand, and what is reasonably available? How do we tutor the society so that they understand the value of different inquiries? These questions give way to a series of debates among as many contingents of the society as possible, so that projects that would harm some of its members are avoided, and that projects with the most potential benefit for the most potential people are pursued. This is the picture of Well-Ordered Science, in its rosiest and most-optimal form. It celebrates the disagreements over science we highlighted before, and encourages us to consider all options democratically, so that in working together,

4 we can reach the best goals for all mankind. In the spirit of this democratic thought, Id like to pose some criticisms to Kitchers values. This integration of practicality and democracy to science wishes to preserve a social-moral standard that will prohibit activities in science that have been considered horrific and abusive. An easy example is the Nazi Human Experiments. This involved scientists coercing prisoners of war and slaves (often Jewish, disabled, or homosexual) and conducting experiments on them without their consent. It often resulted in the subjects death, disfigurement or dismemberment. Most people agree that this was an impermissible act of human torture and malice, and one not fit for the name of science, and I will not disagree. I simply ask us to consider where the line of our exploitation is drawn. Experimentation is still perfectly permissible among many different animals, and any given plant-life. Some activists fight to end this exploitation in the name of the morality we appeal to for human abuse; dont the greater amount of us let this apparently morally-ambiguous exploitation of life on Earth continue, because we hold the value of the knowledge it grants us as worth-while? I will contest that as long as we practice science, we must acknowledge the immorality that comes from many of its pursuits, and that we should either do it consciously, valuing knowledge over the sanctity of life, or restrict our science to experiments without the exploitation of life. Since it seems too late already, and that science has fallen far down the latter rabbit-hole, I propose that Kitchers quest for an optimal moral balance in science is already far off-course, and could potentially fall into a tyrannical censorship of science if realized in any partial way.

5 We should address the concern now: I believe its wrong to assume that science without a moral center couldnt maintain a certain amount of benevolence. The great majority of scientific endeavors have aimed at improving the well-being of human life, regardless of its success, and even in this Chimerical Democracy there could perhaps even be improved room for the pursuit of scientific projects that increase our autonomy and our happiness in some marginal way. This leads me to my next complaint with WOS. Such a framework of science demands governance, for the principle of preserving freedoms. By defending all constituents of a society and their preferences and desires, we seek to defend under-represented groups that might be harmed by certain scientific investigations. We must weigh these concerns of under-representation with the resources and demands of business enterprises, which employ a large amount of scientists today, as well as other scientists, who may be more purely invested in the findings of a line of research that interests him. In this last case, the scientists must compromise their curiosity to be responsible for the rest of society, which seeks what is practical in their research. In WOS, the scientific community is expanded to include as many contingencies in its venture as possible. In this scenario, which will require extensive debate and research before projects can even be set forth, many possible avenues of research will be shut down, either for lack of resources, or interest from the larger community. To me, this WOS puts scientists in chains and prevents possible avenues of discovery, either because the society they are responsible to is not interested, or because they are fearful of its results, no matter how well-tutored they have been. Kitcher acknowledges that many will find his approach too

6 conservative, because it grants so little value to scientific inquiry outside of a societal responsibility. I still agree with Kitcher that it belongs to any given group of people to decide what is worth pursuing in science, but I disagree that scientific endeavors that displease the appetites of certain individuals should prevent another groups pursuit of a line of inquiry. Well-Ordered Science would do the best that it could manage to allow pursuits that met the approval of as many people as possible, but even in its best scenarios where optimal lines of inquiry are pursued, its results remain nebulous, and it will likely displease those who approved it. The results of research still have the challenge of deciding on its best application and practice, which incurs a whole new debate that will inevitably leave more people displeased with its result. To this point, I have tried to show that Kitchers Well-Ordered Science, while a pleasant philosophy in the realm of ideas, remains hindered by the challenges it can never truly conquer in the real world, and only attempt to reconcile optimally. This isnt to say that democracy in science is impossible, only that Kitchers highlyordered and governed version need not be the picture of science that we value. Having seen this vision of democratic science, with all its principles and shortcomings, I now encourage the reader to envision a new democracy for science that is supported by trends in values Ive perceived in our modern world, and Id like to begin the illustration with a discussion on the Human Genome Project (HGP). Throughout history, we have witnessed an exponential change in the human way of life thanks to the utilization of science for technological ends. It has guided us up to the endeavor of decoding the human genome, which has several potential

7 benefits, and it provides a perfect example for us to consider how science should act and be responsible for the things we want to achieve. The project was given the resources it needed by the United States Government, sold by those scientists on the possible advantages it could have for medicine. More than likely, the scientists were interested in the knowledge it would provide in itself, but would simultaneously be responsible to the desires of their investors, be it governments or corporations. This is often their first responsibility in our modern world today, a point made by Kitcher that I can readily agree to. Second to that responsibility comes the society, who as it stands, suffers from a deficiency of understanding (which Kitcher seeks to remedy in his ideal). People have a few basic understandings and responses to the possibility of superlative eugenics. The project has the potential to examine a fetus chromosomes to predict diseases, and other mutations that corrupt the potential life. We can give ourselves a god-like power to manipulate chromosomes, control characteristics, and create potentially ideal human beings. Immediately, this tempting thought gives rise to moral concerns, which is a large consideration for Kitcher in the philosophy of science today. On a socioeconomic level, Kitcher considers that indeed contemporary affluent societies are marked by conditions that are likely to channel genetic prenatal testing towards a very narrow idea of ourselves. (186) By selecting genes that are considered optimal in the context of societal demands, we can envision the depletion of the gene-pool to very specific ideals, which horrifies and challenges the freedoms of our identities and choices, and also presents the potential of killing us off. As evolution tells us, a

8 small gene pool is more than likely to die out in the face of evolutionary processes. The more variation and mutation within a gene pool, the better for the species. Given this power, let us imagine we chose to unleash it, without the WellOrdered democracy to choose the exact avenues in which we should approach application. Let us imagine that the technology is at first marginally accessible, and as more people begin to approve of its use, it becomes more widely available. Imagine, that our society no longer values the same type of traits for the ideal human, but instead values individuality, uniqueness, and mutation form the norm. We will begin to re-write human genes to create the greatest abundance of abnormality among the human race ever seen! So much differentiation of traits, and differentiation which is valued in our world, instead of being feared. Imagine that we could manipulate the genetic code so as to preserve the genotype among all humans, so that we can continue to repopulate, and also encourage the further mutation and development of all different phenotypes, and the human race could explode into a rainbow wash of genetic, organic, living human art. This image is the picture of science I derive from our world today, the Chimerical Democracy. In the modern world of the Internet, there is a new, idembracing psychology amongst its participants. New information is processed all the time, so weve developed a certain appetite for shock. Were often considered the ADD generation that has no attention to retain on one subject, and for certain, its hard to stay involved in one thing when theres more new information flooding into the collective consciousness than ever before. We are a generation that has a greater appreciation for things in themselves, things that have no practicality or

9 purpose, but simply be what they are, and entertain and inspire us by their very existence. Reference any link on the websites www.reddit.com or www.4chan.org and try to discern the why? behind any of it. We are more adventurous intellectually; taboo has become the only taboo anymore; I believe were a generation ready to invite a world stranger than any other generation was willing to do (yes, even more-so than those baby-boomers). What is science like in this Chimerical Democracy? It is unchained from a political body that governs and approves of research; scientists, businessmen, and simply interested browsers can connect with each other over a line of inquiry that interests them, and together, can gather the resources they need (made available for the communication of the internet) to proceed with any projects they desire. There is no need to answer to any authority for approval; and yet if the Internet is good for nothing else, it is good for quickly accumulating a large public critique on any substantive piece of the Internet. Communities may continue to disagree and debate and contend with each others projects, without being fully prevented by a governmental body. In this sense, we can picture this chimerical democracy as granting more autonomy to all of its participants than Kitchers well-ordered science could have. At this point, its important to address a few concerns readers might have with the chimerical democracy: Is it truly more democratic, and in what ways? Without a governmental involvement, how can big-ticket items still be pursued in this framework? Even if the society provides evidence supporting this framework, can we say that its the better direction for science to pursue?

10 There are admittedly still issues as to whether the Internet is as universal as I claim. There are still many parts of the world, steeped in old culture and nowhere near modernized, and these people would be excluded from this new democracy of science, having no voice or way to participate. I can grant the limited patchiness to internet access that still exists in most of the world, and perhaps in WOS, these people could still have another scientist or politician representing their interests. While Chimerical Democracy might not explicitly grant such a representative, theres no reason such a representative couldnt still appear to solicit the Internet community for assistance and potential interest. Id even argue it might get more of an open ear on the Internet than in the slow-moving WOS. Concerning those projects that no Kickstarter page could possibly fund, such as the large hadron collider, I remind the readers of Kitchers principle that the projects valuable for pursuit in science are dependant on the desires of the people. In Chimerical Democracy, this project may fall to the wayside, due to a lack of interest among the internet community or the businesses that exploit such internet trends. If the people do not value it, then the ones most upset and affected are those incredibly small in number, but brilliant minds that wanted to find that amazing knowledge. In this case, we have no need to fear the moral ramification of possibly opening a black hole, and the only negative is a few unfulfilled scientists, who I believe would number greater in WOS. If a large enough base of people on the Internet fall behind a certain idea, then it is still possible for enough resources to be joined to make remarkable projects happen that wouldnt have occurred without widespread support.

11 I will proclaim this of Chimerical Democracy boldly: The value of inquiry in science is a chaotic sense of adventure and curiosity. Many projects on the internet will be for human benefit, and wont have to contend with the corporate dominance of government in deciding what projects of science are valuable and which are not (for their purposes). We might see far more advances in the quality of all lives from the projects that are allowed in such a democracy. We might also see sheer chaos; we might see the suffering of thousands or even millions due to unforeseen circumstances of research that was conducted morally or amorally regardless. We might see something so shocking that we can no longer decide whether it was for better or worse. What we might be starting to see here are the same kind of problems that have plagued scientific endeavors throughout all of time, far before this Internet age: When we make progress in science, that progress is always unprecedented and unpredictable. Despite our best intentions and most righteous goals, our scientific pursuit will change the world and have effects both good and bad, and this chaos will always be unavoidable as long as we decide that we pursue science and research of any kind. Chaos is the price we pay for pursuing knowledge, practical of otherwise. Kitchers attempt to order science is equally benevolent and reasonable when considering how science has worked through history, and knowing such, what it might be able to do. I believe attempts at ordering science in this manner are like hands grasping to the slippery slope of science, to slow its descent to as manageable a pace as possible. The world could still be destroyed just as easily in Kitchers WOS, so instead of fearing the roads not traveled, why dont we turn our world upside-

12 down with bold adventures, embrace the chaos we flung ourselves into long ago, and go for a wild-ride that just might even lead to not only a more chimerical world, but a world who values the bold, unique and exciting? Im excited by the world of today, ever expanding farther out there, and the values it will instill for the world of tomorrow. Bring on the Chimera!

Works Cited

Kitcher, Philip. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.