The Possibility and Reality of Scientist-Philosopher Collaborations: Perspectives From Engaged Philosophy of Science and Scientific Pluralism

Date of Award

5-1-2023

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Arts major in Philosophy (Option 1: Thesis)

First Advisor

Michael Ner E. Mariano

Abstract

This thesis is motivated by the recent empirical studies of Kathryn Plaisance and her colleagues regarding the reality of philosophers of science collaborating with scientists. I have interpreted these studies using two areas of research in contemporary philosophy of science—engaged philosophy of science (EPS) and scientific pluralism (SP). EPS challenges philosophy of science to focus more on issues that have a bearing on public welfare, to collaborate directly with stakeholders in science, and to produce work that has a direct impact on these stakeholders. On the other hand, SP is any position that emphasizes the epistemic and social diversity within but also alongside science, pointing our attention to the various kinds of perceived and actual pluralities in science.

This thesis has jointly considered EPS and SP literature on the implications of already-existing collaborations between philosophers of science and scientists. I have argued in this thesis that both EPS and SP direct our attention to an understanding of science that is pluralistic, more particularly, in terms of being cognizant of the epistemic and non-epistemic values that play out in scientific research, as well as in terms of its human and social dimensions. Collaborations between philosophers of science and scientists are actual activities that can strongly highlight these features of science. Through direct engagements with STEM professionals, philosophers of science can actively contribute to scientific work, as they can help scientists solve scientific problems or guide them in being aware of epistemic and non-epistemic aspects of scientific research. A pluralist understanding of science that accommodates philosophers into the scientific community may lead to a “better” science, “better” in the epistemic sense of co-producing knowledge with scientists, but also “better” in the sense of science that is well-aware of concomitant ethical and social concerns in scientific decision-making.

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS