Cover not available

In:Science and Democracy: Controversies and conflicts
Edited by Pierluigi Barrotta and Giovanni Scarafile
[Controversies 13] 2018
► pp. 53–70

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 3
Rethinking the notion of public

A pragmatist account

Published online: 23 May 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.13.05gro
Recent times have witnessed that democracy and science may easily be in conflict. The goal of the paper is to reframe the issue of the relations between democracy and science in a way that makes it possible to preserve the distinction between the two, while rejecting the pessimistic view that their conflict is harmful. To achieve this goal, I will refine Dewey’s concept of public so as to develop a semantic interpretation of it grounded on the notion of articulation. My proposal is to conceive of the public as a logical space not reducible to that of science, in which the truths discovered by scientists are renegotiated through a process of interaction between the experts and the citizens.
Article outline
  • 1.Dewey’s conception of public
  • 2.Toward a pragmatist philosophy of expertise: The ontology of the public
  • 3.The autonomy of the public and the role of experts
  • Notes
  • References
References (17)
References
Barrotta, P. (2016). Scienza e democrazia. Verità, fatti e valori in una prospettiva pragmatista. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, M. (2009). Science in Democracy. Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, H. M. and Evans, R. (2002). The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Science, 32, 2, 235–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and Its Problems. In J. A. Boydston, Later Works of John Dewey, Vol. 2 1925–27 (pp.235–372). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2008.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dewey, J. & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the Known. In J. A. Boydston, Later Works of John Dewey, Vol. 16 1949–52 (pp.1–279). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2008.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (1995). Impure Science. Aids, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frega, R. (2017). The Normativity of Democracy. European Journal of Political Theory, forthcoming.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gronda, R. (2017). Mezzi della ragione: pragmatismo e tecnologia. In M. Negrotti (Ed.), Uomini e macchine (pp.73–90). Roma: Armando.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015a). What Does China Mean for Pragmatism? A Philosophical Interpretation of Dewey’s Sojourn in China (1919–1921). European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy , Vol. 7 No. 2, 45–70.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015b). Normativity and Objectivity: The Semantic Nature of Objects and the Potentiality of Nature. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, Vol. 7 No. 1, 115–129.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levi, I. (2010). Dewey’s Logic of Inquiry. In M. Cochran (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Dewey (pp.80–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1925). The Phantom Public. Piscataway: Transactions Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Misak, C. (2004). C. S. Peirce on Vital Matters. In C. Misak (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Peirce (pp.150–174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1992). The Cambridge Conferences Lectures of 1898. In K. L. Ketner (Ed.), Reasoning and the Logic of Things (pp.105–268). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (1996). May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, Environment & Modernity. Towards a New Ecology (pp.44–83). London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Mattarollo, Livio
2025. John Dewey y la pregunta por la dirección de la investigación. Revista de Filosofía (La Plata) 55:2 ► pp. e126 ff. DOI logo
Barrotta, Pierluigi & Roberto Gronda
2020. Epistemic Inequality and the Grounds of Trust in Scientific Experts. In Trust [Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, 54], ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue