Abstract
Richard Rudner famously argues that the communication of scientific advice to policy makers involves ethical value judgments. His argument has, however, been rightly criticized. This article revives Rudner's conclusion, by strengthening both his lines of argument: we generalize his initial assumption regarding the form in which scientists must communicate their results and complete his ‘backup’ argument by appealing to the difference between private and public decisions. Our conclusion that science advisors must, for deep-seated pragmatic reasons, make value judgments is further bolstered by reflections on how the scientific contribution to policy is far less straightforward than the Rudner-style model suggests.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,Philosophy,History
Cited by
98 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Stepping Back;The Edge of Sentience;2024-08-15
2. Large Language Models and the Gaming Problem;The Edge of Sentience;2024-08-15
3. Frontiers of Proportionality;The Edge of Sentience;2024-08-15
4. Pushing the Boundaries;The Edge of Sentience;2024-08-15
5. The Clearest Candidates;The Edge of Sentience;2024-08-15