The Epistemic Role of Science and Expertise in Liberal Democracy

Abstract

A common argument for the Classical View trades on the distinction between facts and values. Science should only make assertions in matters where it has a special epistemic authority. Science will accept a role of the neutral arbiter of facts, but not if its epistemic authority is constantly attacked for political reasons. H. M. Collins and R. Evans pressed the different charge that science studies reveal that there is no justification for thinking that science or scientific experts have any special access to truth. For liberal democracy such skepticism about the epistemic merits of science would imply that there is no justification for involving scientific expertise in democratic decision-making. Decision-making in liberal democracy covers various forms of public deliberation, voting and political decision-making. In decision-making in liberal democracy, the evaluative component derives from the core values of liberal democracy, deliberation and from various democratic procedures.