Books by Markus Dressel
Dissertation, 2023
Welche Rolle spielen Werturteile in wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis – und welche Implikationen erge... more Welche Rolle spielen Werturteile in wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis – und welche Implikationen ergeben sich hieraus für das Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft? Die vorliegende Arbeit betrachtet diese Fragen aus wissenschaftsphilosophischer Perspektive. In Teil I wird die Diskussionslage zum Ideal wertfreier Wissenschaft dargestellt (DE). Teil II präsentiert eine Begriffsanalyse des Wertfreiheitsideals, wobei insbesondere dessen Teilthesen, Einschränkungen und Interpretationsmöglichkeiten betrachtet werden (DE). In Teil III wird einer der wichtigsten philosophischen Einwände gegen Wertfreiheit diskutiert: das Argument des induktiven Risikos (EN). Teil IV behandelt den Ansatz Philip Kitchers zur Integration von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern in Forschungsprozesse (EN). Im Zentrum steht dabei das Konzept der idealen Deliberation. In Teil V wird ein theoretisch informiertes Verständnis von Wissenschafts-Gesellschafts-Modellen vorgelegt und dessen Nutzung als Reflexions-Tool in realen Wissenschafts-Gesellschafts-Interaktionen diskutiert (EN).
----
What role do value-judgements play in science – and what are the consequences for the relation between science and society? This work addresses these issues from a philosophy of science perspective. Part I presents the current and classic debate on the ideal of value-free science (German). Part II is a conceptual analysis of the value-free ideal, with special consideration of this ideal’s sub-claims, its restrictions and conceivable interpretations (German). Part III discusses one of the most prominent philosophical critiques of value-freedom: the argument from inductive risk (English). Part IV is devoted to Philip Kitcher and his call for an intensified participation of citizens in science. In particular, this part focusses on the concept of an ideal deliberation between citizens and scientists (English). Part V develops a theoretical understanding of science-society models and discusses how this understanding can be used as a reflexive tool in actual science-society interactions (English).
Papers by Markus Dressel
Models of Science and Society: How Do They Affect Quality Criteria for Transdisciplinary Research?
Manuscript (work in progress), 2024
Despite the extensive literature on transdisciplinarity, the criteria for good transdisciplinary ... more Despite the extensive literature on transdisciplinarity, the criteria for good transdisciplinary research are still subject to debate. Consequently, actors involved in transdisciplinary research may disagree about the choice of these quality criteria, their interpretation and their prioritization. While such disagreements are typically attributed to the contextual nature of transdisciplinarity, this paper argues that an additional factor should receive more attention: science-society interaction models. Representing an actor’s epistemological and socio-theoretical background assumptions, these models shape our views of good transdisciplinarity across contexts. The paper provides a conceptual framework for analyzing potential disagreements on transdisciplinary quality and attributing them to different science-society interaction models. Using such an approach, theorists and practitioners of transdisciplinarity can increase their understanding of the relevant actor assumptions and actively reflect them in transdisciplinary projects in sustainability research and beyond.
GERICS Report , 2022
In welchem Verhältnis stehen Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft – und in welchem Verhältnis sollten si... more In welchem Verhältnis stehen Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft – und in welchem Verhältnis sollten sie stehen? Trotz der überaus reichhaltigen Literatur zu diesem Thema existiert kein allgemein anerkanntes Modell des Wissenschafts-Gesellschafts-Verhältnisses. Im Gegenteil: die einschlägigen Positionen zerfallen in eine Vielfalt von Traditionen, Argumenten und thematischen Schwerpunkten. So ist noch nicht einmal unstrittig, was ein Modell des Wissenschafts-Gesellschafts-Verhältnisses überhaupt ist, welche Annahmen darin eingehen und welche Terminologie zu seiner Beschreibung sinnvoll ist. Dies erschwert die Bearbeitung wichtiger Fragen: Welche Aufgabenverteilung zwischen Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft ist angemessen? Kann und soll Wissenschaft wertfrei sein? Wer entscheidet, welche Konsequenzen aus Forschungsergebnissen abgeleitet werden? Derartige Fragen sind insbesondere für gesellschaftlich relevante Bereiche wie die Klima- und Klimaserviceforschung von Interesse. Der GERICS-Report 35 gibt Orientierung über die einschlägigen Diskussionsstränge. Ausgehend von einer klassischen Unterscheidung werden das expertenzentrierte, das entscheidungszentrierte und das stakeholderzentrierte Modell als Grundmodelle des Wissenschafts-Gesellschafts-Verhältnisses diskutiert. Weiterhin werden sechs Dimensionen von Hintergrundannahmen vorgestellt, in denen die Modelle Stellung zu wissenschafts- und gesellschaftstheoretischen Grundsatzfragen beziehen. Und schließlich wird die übergeordnete Frage diskutiert, wie Modelle des Wissenschafts-Gesellschafts-Verhältnisses interpretiert werden sollten. Damit leistet dieser Report einen Beitrag zum Verständnis der vielfältigen Perspektiven auf Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft sowie der Implikationen, die sich für praxisrelevante Forschungsbereiche wie die Klimaforschung ergeben.
Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 2022
What is the appropriate place for science in society? Despite the vast literature on the subject,... more What is the appropriate place for science in society? Despite the vast literature on the subject, the science–society relation remains a disputed issue. A major reason is that, when we are asking about the right place of science in society, we are actually asking a range of interrelated and hard-to-answer individual questions. These questions include the role of social values in the research process, the neutrality of science in policy, the interplay between evidence and decision-making, and many others. A sensible way to organize these questions—and the set of potential answers—are science–society interaction models (SSIMs). SSIMs reduce the complexity of the science–society relation and provide generic templates for interactions between scientists and non-scientists. However, SSIMs are often used in an unproductive way, namely as antagonistic camps or as representations of real-world actors’ beliefs. Focusing on the popular distinction between technocratic, decisionist, and pragmatist models, this paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of SSIMs. It argues that SSIMs should not, as is often done in the science–society literature, be understood as antagonistic camps or representations of actor beliefs, but as ideal types and heuristics. Building on this interpretation, this paper presents tentative ideas for a reflexive tool that real-world actors can use to assess their fundamental assumptions about science and society.
Inductive Risk: Does it Really Refute Value-Freedom?
Theoria: An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, 2022
The argument from inductive risk is considered to be one of the strongest challenges for value-fr... more The argument from inductive risk is considered to be one of the strongest challenges for value-free science. A great part of its appeal lies in the idea that even an ideal epistemic agent—the “perfect scientist” or “scientist qua scientist”—cannot escape inductive risk. In this paper, I scrutinize this ambition by stipulating an idealized Bayesian decision setting. I argue that inductive risk does not show that the “perfect scientist” must, descriptively speaking, make non-epistemic value judgements, at least not in a way that undermines the value-free ideal. However, the argument is more successful in showing that there are cases where the “perfect scientist” should, normatively speaking, use non-epistemic values. I also show that this is possible without creating problems of illegitimate prescription and wishful thinking. Thus, while inductive risk does not refute value-freedom completely, it still represents a powerful critique of value free science.
Challenges and best-practices of co-creation: A qualitative interview study in the field of climate services
Climate Services, 2022
Climate services are becoming instrumental for providing actionable climate information to societ... more Climate services are becoming instrumental for providing actionable climate information to society. To understand the needs of society, climate service providers increasingly engage in processes of co-creation with practitioners. Yet, while these science-practice interactions are highly promising to match the demand and supply side of climate services, they come with challenges of their own. Potential barriers include difficulties in mutual understanding, diverging perspectives on the research problem, or a lack of resources and training in engaging with practice partners. Importantly, however, these barriers are surmountable if properly addressed. In this paper, we present the results of a series of interviews with researchers working in the funding line European Research Area for Climate Services (ERA4CS). We identify five challenges that these researchers are facing in their interactions with practice partners. From these challenges, we infer best practices that can help to strengthen such interactions. In line with other suggestions in the literature, we propose the role of a boundary manager as a promising way to put these best practices into action. This mediating role between science and society either can be taken by scientists themselves, or can be institutionalized as a dedicated position within climate service organizations. Adding to the experience that climate service providers already have, increased emphasis on boundary management could further improve their science-practice engagements.
WiSo Working Paper Series, 2022
Klimapolitische Entscheidungen sind herausfordernd. Eine besondere Schwierigkeit liegt in der Fol... more Klimapolitische Entscheidungen sind herausfordernd. Eine besondere Schwierigkeit liegt in der Folgeabschätzung: Meist sind zwar die möglichen Handlungsfolgen, nicht aber deren Wahrscheinlichkeiten bekannt (Entscheidungen unter Unsicherheit). Mitunter ist sogar unklar, welche Handlungsfolgen überhaupt in Betracht kommen (Entscheidungen unter tiefer Unsicherheit). Zudem sind die potenziellen ökologischen, wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Folgen oft nur schwer mit einander vergleichbar. Es stellt sich daher die Frage, welche Entscheidungsregel für klimapolitische Entscheidungen unter Unsicherheit und tiefer Unsicherheit angemessen ist. Die vorliegende Arbeit betrachtet dieses Problem aus einer bisher kaum diskutierten Perspektive. Sie fragt, ob religiöse Traditionen als Quellen für Entscheidungsprinzipien im Klimakontext infrage kommen. Hierfür werden die Ergebnisse einer explorativen Literaturstudie vorgestellt. Betrachtet werden theologische, religionswissenschaftliche und philosophische Quellen aus dem Zeitraum von 1960 bis 2015. Es wird gezeigt, dass diese Quellen interessante Anknüpfungspunkte für Entscheidungsprobleme im Klimakontext bieten, sowohl hinsichtlich entscheidungstheoretischer als auch weiterer Fragestellung, etwa zum Verhältnis von Religion und Ökologie. Gleichzeitig werden auch die Grenzen dieser theologischen Impulse für klimapolitische Entscheidungsprobleme diskutiert.
fteval Journal for Research and Technology Policy Evaluation, 2022
Climate change and its socio-ecological impacts affect all sectors of society. To tackle the mult... more Climate change and its socio-ecological impacts affect all sectors of society. To tackle the multiple risks of climate change the field of climate services evolved during the last decades. In this scientific field products to be applied in practice are developed in constant interaction between climate service providers and users. To judge the effectiveness of these co-creation endeavours, evaluation is crucial. At present, output and outcome assessments are conducted occasionally in this research field. However, the summative evaluation does not help to adjust the ongoing process of co-creation. Thus, our work focuses on the formative evaluation of co-creative development of science-based climate service products. As the first step, main characteristics of the product development process were identified empirically. Secondly, we determined the six sub- processes of climate service product development and related process steps. Thirdly, we selected the questions for the formative evaluation relevant to all the sub-processes and process-steps. Then, a literature review delivered the theoretical background for further work and revealed further quality aspects. These aspects from literature were brought together with our results from the empirical work. In the end, we created a new scheme of quality criteria and related assessment questions for the different sub-processes in climate services, based on both, empirical and theoretical work. As the authors take into account the process of co-production in a real-life case, the criteria and assessment questions proposed are operational and hands-on. The quality aspects refer to the five principles of applicability, theoretical and empirical foundation, professionalism, transparency of processes and the disclosure of preconditions. They are elaborated comprehensively in our study. The resulting formative evalu- ation scheme is novel in climate service science and practice and useful in improving the co-creation processes in climate services and beyond.
Revisiting Carbon Removal Ethics: A Contextual View of 'Moral Hazard' and 'Arm the Future'
Manuscript (work in progress), 2021
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies are increasingly viewed as essential for achieving the ... more Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies are increasingly viewed as essential for achieving the well below 2°C target of the Paris agreement. This raises issues of intergenerational justice: CDR may “arm the future” against current generations’ failure to reduce emissions, but it may also create a “moral hazard” by obstructing near-term mitigation. While these arguments figure prominently in the debate, they originate from the different context of solar radiation management. They also do not account for stringent temperature targets or different deployment scenarios. In this paper, we first perform a philosophical analysis to reformulate the “arming the future” and “moral hazard” argument for CDR in 2°Cscenarios. We argue that both arguments are too broad to determine ethically acceptable CDR strategies. We then scrutinize the arguments in the integrated assessment model REMIND. By varying the future availability of CDR, the stringency of near-term mitigation and the formulation of the climate target, we show that target formulations have the greatest impact on intergenerational justice. We also show that irrespective of the CDR strat-egy, mitigation is the major factor in below 2°C pathways. Acknowledging that scenario evidence cannot decide ethical controversies, we finally argue that research on and development of CDR is ethically defensible, but that “betting” on CDR is problematic due to the risk of disruptions if CDR remains unavailable.
Integriertes Wissen in den Klimawissenschaften: Interviewstudie zu den erkenntnistheoretischen Grundlagen der interdisziplinärer Modelle
Report an das CliSAP Scientific Steering Committee, 2015
In einer Reihe von leitfadengestützten Interviews wurden die Vorstellungen von sechs leitenden Wi... more In einer Reihe von leitfadengestützten Interviews wurden die Vorstellungen von sechs leitenden Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftlern des Exzellenzclusters "Integrated Climate System Analysis and Prediction" (CliSAP) zu den wissenschaftstheoretischen Grundlagen integrierter naturwissenschaftlich-sozialwissenschaftlicher Modellierung erhoben. Dabei zeigten sich grundlegend unterschiedliche Positionen der Befragten: Während ein Teil der Befragten die Erfolgsaussichten integrierter naturwissenschaftlich-sozialwissenschaftlicher Modelle als hoch einstufte, äußerte ein anderer Teil grundsätzliche Bedenken. Diese Bedenken bezogen sich zum einen auf die Möglichkeit, soziokulturelle Phänomene wie Wertewandel oder kulturelle Deutungsmuster zu modellieren, zum anderen auf die unterschiedliche Funktionsweise von Natur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Weitgehender Konsens ließ sich demgegenüber bei den Vorstellungen der Befragten über Eigenschaften und Funktionen naturwissenschaftlicher Modelle feststellen.
Organized Workshops and Conferences by Markus Dressel
Workshop with Philip Kitcher at Leibniz University Hannover, 2017
Is the notion of progress suitable to analyze such disparate endeavors as science, ethics, econom... more Is the notion of progress suitable to analyze such disparate endeavors as science, ethics, economics or society as a whole? If so, what conceptual assumptions does such a notion require? In a recent contribution, Philip Kitcher suggested that progress has to be understood as the successful attempt to solve pragmatic problems. Consequently, whether or not a development can be called progressive depends on the contextual aims of the involved agents. Since these aims can legitimately vary, progress is a local phenomenon. However, Kitcher also pursues a universalist strategy: Pragmatic problem solving should help to realize the all-embracing goal of creating a good life for all. For Kitcher, this “Ethical Project” reaches back to the early stages of human evolution and serves as the ultimate touchstone for progress. Science, for instance, makes progress if it is devoted to problems of human wellbeing and if it finds solutions to these problems that promote practical realizations of the good life. In a one day workshop at Leibniz Universität Hannover, we will discuss the merits and challenges of the notion of progress. A special emphasis will be put on progress in science and ethics as well as the work of Philip Kitcher regarding these fields. However, progress in further areas (economy, law, politics) as well as contributions unrelated to Kitcher are also welcome. Philip Kitcher will be present at the workshop and give a keynote lecture. Furthermore, he will give a public evening lecture on Monday, June 12.
Hamburger Klimakreis
Forschungscolloquium an der Universität Hamburg, 2016
Der Hamburger Klimakreis ist ein interdisziplinäres Diskussionsforum, zu den Themen Klima, Klimaw... more Der Hamburger Klimakreis ist ein interdisziplinäres Diskussionsforum, zu den Themen Klima, Klimawandel, Klimaforschung und Klimapolitik. Gesellschafts- und geisteswissenschaftliche Analysen werden dabei in einen fruchtbaren Dialog mit der naturwissenschaftlichen Klimaforschung gebracht. Die Veranstaltung richtet sich an Nachwuchswissenschaftlerinnen und -wissenschaftler. Diskutiert
werden aktuelle Forschungspapers, Work-in-progress der Teilnehmenden sowie Vorträge von externen Gästen. Präsentationen können in deutscher oder englischer Sprache gehalten werden.
Egyptian-German Workshop / Summer School at Free University Berlin, 2013
The recent uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa that have become known as the Arab Sprin... more The recent uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa that have become known as the Arab Spring never failed to surprise observers. The rapidity and extent of mass protests that took the streets rendered the entire scene almost incomprehensible for analysts and experts who have adhered to an idea of “Arab exceptionalism” for the last couple of decades. Most questions that have been raised in the aftermath of the Arab Spring have therefore understandably focused on reconstructing its underlying factors and predicting its geopolitical consequences. But apart from challenging the political and economic order of the region, the events of the Arab Spring have also underlined the urgency to revisit our understandings of various normative paradigms. Ever since 2011, the calls for freedom, dignity and justice have been and remain the most prominent demands resonating in all forms of institutional rearrangements and protest. They are uttered in the face of experienced forms of domination, humiliation and injustice. The choices and dilemmas of rapid change throughout the events of the Arab Spring raise serious questions about how we imagine democracy, activism and resistance. Hitherto existing theories and paradigms within the humanities and social science seemed unable to read the complexity. At the same time, those norms in question in the Arab Spring are essential in normative paradigms of Western societies as well. Yet, the current European crisis clearly illustrates the rising intensity of negotiations on a just and free society. Furthermore, discourses on immigration, social policy or security are fully comprehended only if we consider the myriad versions of norms from which these discourses spring. The same holds true for the agenda of international affairs and development cooperation. Amid this huge flux of ideas in an ever closer connected world, one feels the necessity to revisit the notions of challenged, revised and shared normative ideas. In this one-week-workshop at the Freie Universität Berlin young academics and activists as well as senior researchers and experts from Egypt and Germany come together to engage in a cross-cultural conversation. Up for debate are the normative dimensions of the current transformations in the Arab World, with a particular focus on Egypt. Designed from a multidisciplinary perspective, the workshop aims at fathoming the flux of interpretations of norms such as freedom, justice or dignity. Theoretical, empirical, methodological and cross-cultural contributions from a variety of disciplinary perspectives shed light on the potentialities, challenges and evidences of these normative transformations in the Arab Spring.
Das Werk von Jürgen Habermas
Workshop mit Jürgen Habermas, 2011
Uploads
Books by Markus Dressel
----
What role do value-judgements play in science – and what are the consequences for the relation between science and society? This work addresses these issues from a philosophy of science perspective. Part I presents the current and classic debate on the ideal of value-free science (German). Part II is a conceptual analysis of the value-free ideal, with special consideration of this ideal’s sub-claims, its restrictions and conceivable interpretations (German). Part III discusses one of the most prominent philosophical critiques of value-freedom: the argument from inductive risk (English). Part IV is devoted to Philip Kitcher and his call for an intensified participation of citizens in science. In particular, this part focusses on the concept of an ideal deliberation between citizens and scientists (English). Part V develops a theoretical understanding of science-society models and discusses how this understanding can be used as a reflexive tool in actual science-society interactions (English).
Papers by Markus Dressel
Organized Workshops and Conferences by Markus Dressel
werden aktuelle Forschungspapers, Work-in-progress der Teilnehmenden sowie Vorträge von externen Gästen. Präsentationen können in deutscher oder englischer Sprache gehalten werden.
----
What role do value-judgements play in science – and what are the consequences for the relation between science and society? This work addresses these issues from a philosophy of science perspective. Part I presents the current and classic debate on the ideal of value-free science (German). Part II is a conceptual analysis of the value-free ideal, with special consideration of this ideal’s sub-claims, its restrictions and conceivable interpretations (German). Part III discusses one of the most prominent philosophical critiques of value-freedom: the argument from inductive risk (English). Part IV is devoted to Philip Kitcher and his call for an intensified participation of citizens in science. In particular, this part focusses on the concept of an ideal deliberation between citizens and scientists (English). Part V develops a theoretical understanding of science-society models and discusses how this understanding can be used as a reflexive tool in actual science-society interactions (English).
werden aktuelle Forschungspapers, Work-in-progress der Teilnehmenden sowie Vorträge von externen Gästen. Präsentationen können in deutscher oder englischer Sprache gehalten werden.