Call for papers

'(Mis)Trust in Science'

When and where:

*15 and 16 December 2023

*Museumzaal (MSI 02.08), KU Leuven, Erasmusplein 2, 3000 Leuven

‘Why trust science?’ Naomi Oreskes asked at the height of the Covid-19 crisis (Oreskes, 2021). An increasing number of citizens and policymakers no longer seem to do exactly that (Vandewalle et all., 2024). Conspiracy theories are flourishing on the internet while governments cut in research and university funding. ‘Why trust facts’? Might be another suitable question for our current day and age. Part of contemporary society, especially online, seems to welcome scientific data with skepticism, indifference or doubt (Billiet et all, 2018). Or do we exaggerate the impact of Twitter trolls and conspiracy Youtubers, the power of social media and its algorithms?

In case we take the diminishing trust in science seriously and look beneath the surface of online and offline science distrust, which insights do we gain that historians and philosophers of science can study and engage with? A logical starting point would be to take a closer look at the roots of this modern distrust. Some scholars with a more positivist outlook attribute the decline in belief in radical rationalism and the unquestioned benefits of science to the influence of postmodernism (Blancke & Boudry, 2022). However, are Michel Foucault, Paul Feyerabend and Bruno Latour really to blame for the Flat Earth Society and vaccine hesitancy? Or is attributing responsibility in this way a remnant of the polarising discourse of the so-called “science wars” (Beck, 2022), and does it run the risk of oversimplifying the structural dynamics at play? Are scientists themselves to blame, by not explaining the facts as much as they should? Conversely, in the debates on Covid-19 or climate change, some media and politicians called out epidemiologists and climate scientists for being too present, for supposedly acting too much like activists or undemocratic experts (Van Dyck & Simons, 2021). For others, like Jaron Harambam, the STS did not engage enough in public debate in the Covid-19 years (Harambam, 2020). The wide range of perspectives used to explain the loss of science’s authority can sometimes lead to a selective, 'pick-and-choose' approach.

If indeed there exists such a deepfelt distrust in science while the scientific community itself is divided on its reasons and possible solutions, the question arises how we - as logicians, philosophers and historians of science – should position ourselves. What role can the humanities and social sciences play to stimulate and nuance the debate on science, trust and the broader audience? How should this community react in the face of disinformation and conspiracy theories? In today’s society, scientists appear to place considerable trust in the idea that informing or involving the public in new scientific findings—and the hard empirical data underpinning them—will strengthen public understanding of science. However, this might be too naïve. Authors like Oreskes but also Maya Goldenberg (Goldenberg, 2021) have argued against placing excessive confidence in the persuasive power of statistical information and approaching contemporary hesitancy towards science as a problem of misinformation or misunderstanding. They make a plea to go beyond the surface level and search for the deeper roots of trust and distrust in science.

How should philosophers and historians of science approach mistrust in science? We might want to invest more in knowledge and understanding about science, in the internal logics of science, in its relation to expertise, reliability, shared values and ethics, in order to strengthen the position of the sciences. This does not imply a simple return to whiggish ideas about science and its history. The history and philosophy of science are privileged fields to problematise its claims to success and its failures, challenges and controversies. Also, contemporary society is not the first to be confronted with distrust towards science, expertise or academia. If we look at similar cases of tensions between citizens and science, in the present or the past, do we spot alternatives for a data-driven science communication? History provides numerous examples of the complex and often fraught relationship between science and society, of vaccine hesitancy, of threats to the autonomy and role of universities – from the mad cow crisis (Van Zwanenberg & Millstone, 2005) to previous medical campaigns against diseases like smallpox (Vandendriessche, 2021; Verwaal, 2021) or cervical cancer (Huisman, 2015; 2021) and the shutdown of the Old University in Leuven (Lamberts, 2010). Historians and philosophers of science should revisit some of these histories.

Furthermore, how do we disseminate knowledge about science? What role does the digital have to play in this? The online world that has supposedly buried facts and reasoning beneath badly informed opinions and viral conspiracy theories, might also be part of the solution. Advances in software and evolving data-sharing practices are rapidly enhancing the ability to link and widely disseminate reliable information in the context of Web 3.0. This includes insights from the philosophy and history of science and our scientific heritage. If science offers the public a peek behind the curtain via digital media, maybe science can regain some trust? However, as Fien Danniau and Christophe Verbruggen remind us, digital humanities do not equal public humanities (Danniau & Verbruggen, 2023). Is the targeted audience of existing public science projects really being reached? Does public engagement with science —online or offline—really contribute to a better understanding of both its potential and its limitations? Does open science and citizen science live up to its hopes and dreams? How scientific results circulates in society, including the digital realm, might not always match researchers’ intentions. However, both successful and unsuccessful efforts to engage a wider audience offer valuable insights not only into the public understanding of science, but also into society itself.

The ninth edition of the Young Researchers’ Days in Logic, Philosophy and History of Science will address these concerns and questions about (historical) trust relationship between science and the public and the role of science communication. The YRD opens the floor to a broad discussion and exploration of these themes. It thus offers an unusually interdisciplinary opportunity for young researchers, i.e. PhD students and postdoctoral scholars, to present their work to a larger community of emerging and established scholars, and to explore how their research can be engaging across disciplinary boundaries. Researchers outside of Belgium are also invited to submit, but priority will be given to junior researchers conducting research in Belgium.

Organizers & Scope of the YRD

The National Committee for Logics, History and Philosophy of Science (NCLHPhS) promotes research in Belgium in these three disciplines and for this purpose organizes the biennial Young Researchers Days. Through open call proposals, we typically invite c. 20 young researchers working in Belgium in these three fields, to present their work and engage in communal question rounds.

Papers will be accepted in English, Dutch, and French. However, the lingua franca of YRD9 is English, and applicants are strongly encouraged to present papers in this language. Paper presentations should be 15 minutes in length. Each presentation will be followed by 15 minutes of discussion.

Call for papers:

Abstracts of approximately 300 words should be sent to bestor@rasab.be. Your name, e-mail address, and affiliation should be on the first page and the actual abstract should be on the second page. Your abstract should be anonymised.