Recognized as one of the most influential philosophers of science of the past two decades, Philip Kitcher will deliver the Rotman Institute Lecture in Philosophy and Science on the topic of “Authority, Responsibility and Democracy” at 5 p.m. tonight in Conron Hall.
Kitcher, the John Dewey Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University, is a member of the Rotman Institute of Philosophy’s International Advisory Committee.
Share what you’re currently researching at Columbia University.
I am very interested in the relations of the practice of science and the generation of knowledge and all sorts of social issues about how that knowledge is received and how it gets used. So this particular project really takes off from the idea that having reliable information for the public is very, very important. It’s important for crafting policies and it’s important to individuals for making their plans and all sorts of decisions. So in a situation where it seems that people are not accepting or making use of the best information that’s available to them, we’re trying to find out why that’s happening.
Recently Stephen Hawking said philosophy is dead and that science has all the answers. What do you have to say to that?
Just to put it rather impolitely, that’s rubbish. There are all sorts of things scientists don’t know about. But maybe they will continue to enlighten us in all sorts of ways. I mean, much of the history of thought has been about the developments of science in areas where people didn’t anticipate science could be developed. So you should always be open to the thought that scientists will develop understanding. But to understand things about the structure of the cosmos is not necessarily the same as to understand things about the human psyche or human hopes or human aspirations or the kinds of rules by which people might well live. So I don’t think that Hawking is at all right. He probably is reacting to a particular view of philosophy that he has. But it seems to me, I have to say, it’s a very silly statement for such an extraordinarily intelligent man to make.
The goal, in part, of Rotman Institute of Philosophy is to foster and support dialogue and collaboration between philosophers and scientists, thereby building novel and productive bridges between the humanities and the sciences. Why is building these bridges so important?
I actually think it’s extremely valuable for people outside the scientific community to work with scientists to understand the types of social and value questions that arise in the practice and application of science. And for philosophers to serve as a conduit between the scientific community and the general public and people that are in politics who make policy makes sense. So yes, I actually think is an extremely valuable role.
Can you give an example in science where further discussion and thought is needed?
Just to give you something from my past, in the mid-1990s when the Human Genome project was really beginning, I was asked by the Library of Congress in the United States to look at the project and write a report about the kinds of questions that arose. And that eventually became a book, as well as a report for the Library of Congress, and I think that sort of work, which I did, and other people did with respect to the Genome Project is actually extremely important. I actually think it’s crucial that when pieces of scientific research have potentially profound implications for human lives, that there be people who think seriously with scientists about these implications.
I think this is very important at the moment with respect to climate change. These are examples of places where there really has to be a liaison between the scientific community and the public and the policy makers. And I think the Rotman Institute has a chance to do some really wonderful work in that regard. I wouldn’t have agreed to be on advisory board, if I didn’t think that it was a very important venture.
Can you give us a tease of what you will be delving into for tonight’s lecture?
I’m going to talk about the problems that I see at the moment in the gap between what the public believes – not just in the United States or Canada but in many countries – and what the scientific community is most convinced of.
Again, this is most dramatic, actually in a global context, not only with respect to the global warming issue, but it’s also fairly dramatic with respect to issues about genetically modified organisms. There is a gap between what the scientific community thinks is reliable information and the kinds of beliefs that ordinary citizens have and the kinds of polices that are being developed by governments. I know the United States’ case better than others but there are similar problems that arise in many, many countries.
And there’s also a gap between what people around the world need and the kind of research that is being done. That’s the most obvious in the biomedical field where much is geared towards conditions that affect a relatively small number of people while diseases that cause really huge problems in poor countries go unstudied.