What do you think?
Rate this book
Experts and the Will of the People: Society, Populism and Science
The rise of populism in the West has led to attacks on the legitimacy of scientific expertise in political decision making. This book explores the differences between populism and pluralist democracy and their relationship with science. Pluralist democracy is characterised by respect for minority choices and a system of checks and balances that prevents power being concentrated in one group, while populism treats minorities as traitorous so as to concentrate power in the government. The book argues that scientific expertise – and science more generally -- should be understood as one of the checks and balances in pluralist democracies. It defends science as ‘craftwork with integrity’ and shows how its crucial role in democratic societies can be rethought and that it must be publicly explained. This book will be of value to scholars and practitioners working across STS as well as to anyone interested in decoding the populist agenda against science.
- GenresPolitics
99 pages, Hardcover
Published October 11, 2019
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 9, 2020
Read this for class and a couple thoughts stood out:
“When they vote, the ordinary people in a modern democratic society might be thinking as individuals but the very possibility that they can think meaningfully arises out of circumstances that are put in place and maintained collectively.”
“In direct democracy, the assumption appears to be that all citizens are able to form meaningful opinions about any and all of the issues on which they are to be consulted. …In contemporary societies with their complex divisions of highly specialised labour, proliferation of interest groups and identities, and sheer number of issues and problems, the assumption of omnicompetence seems implausible, even fantastical. It is no longer possible, if it ever was, for anyone to be an expert in everything.”
“Analysts were finding ways of looking at the creation of scientific knowledge that made science look like any other cultural enterprise such as creation of art or fashion, fields in which what counted as good work was a matter of assembling opinions.”
“When they vote, the ordinary people in a modern democratic society might be thinking as individuals but the very possibility that they can think meaningfully arises out of circumstances that are put in place and maintained collectively.”
“In direct democracy, the assumption appears to be that all citizens are able to form meaningful opinions about any and all of the issues on which they are to be consulted. …In contemporary societies with their complex divisions of highly specialised labour, proliferation of interest groups and identities, and sheer number of issues and problems, the assumption of omnicompetence seems implausible, even fantastical. It is no longer possible, if it ever was, for anyone to be an expert in everything.”
“Analysts were finding ways of looking at the creation of scientific knowledge that made science look like any other cultural enterprise such as creation of art or fashion, fields in which what counted as good work was a matter of assembling opinions.”
Read
April 24, 2023a visão do populismo como fenômeno necessariamente negativo não me interessa tanto
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews