Hans Radder
Hans Radder is professor (emeritus) at the Department of Philosophy, VU University Amsterdam. He does research in Philosophy of science and technology, broadly conceived, that is, including their social, political and ethical dimensions. His recent book is "From commodification to the common good: Reconstructing science, technology, and society" (see https://upittpress.org/books/9780822945796/).
For more, see his personal website: www.hans-radder.nl/
For more, see his personal website: www.hans-radder.nl/
less
Related Authors
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Hans Radder
For these purposes, we first demonstrate that producing prescription drugs through patenting has serious drawbacks. Second, we develop a concrete alternative (medical research without patents) that is shown to be scientifically, socially and morally preferable, economically and financially profitable, and socio-politically and organizationally practicable.
traced back to antiquity. In ancient times, the Chinese people independently created and developed application-oriented sciences, but
they ignored basic science. In modern times, China learned and introduced Western science and technology as a practical instrument
to protect the nation and make it prosperous and powerful. Through
technology and production, science has been playing an immediate
and major role in the development of socialism since 1949. Since
1978, the Chinese government has always emphasized that science
and technology are the primary productive forces. From ancient times
to the present, the practice-oriented views of science are grounded in
politics. Science has been the handmaiden of politics since the Qin
Dynasty. However, this state of affairs hinders the development of basic
science, a science that is not oriented toward immediate application.
It also hinders open-minded, critical reflection on the downsides
or limits of science, which could draw on broader (moral, spiritual,
or religious) values.
Section 2 reviews and evaluates several answers to the question of what to understand by the notion of a common (or public) good. It discusses both economic and socio-political interpretations of this notion.
In Section 3, I develop an alternative account of the common good of scientific knowledge. This knowledge constitutes a common good if it is both non-exhaustible
and in the public interest. The two notions are equally important, but in this article, the focus is on the former. For reasons of space, a detailed discussion of the latter is impossible; it will be provided in a forthcoming book. My answer to the question posed in the title of this article builds on the critical discussion of extant views in Sections 1 and 2: some aspects of these views are
included in this alternative account, while others are shown to be unhelpful or untenable. The final section discusses some practical implications of this account for the politics of science. The main conclusion is that scientific research should not be privatized through patenting its products.
All country reports are freely accessible. They can be found on the website of the Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, https://social-epistemology.com/2017/07/13/international-responses-to-the-academic-manifesto-reports-from-14-countries-willem-halffman-and-hans-radder/
explanation of the notion of an inclusive (in contrast to a restricted) philosophy of science. This notion of an inclusive philosophy of science is specified by discussing three general topics that seem to be missing from, or are quite marginal in, restricted philosophy of
science. These topics are the philosophy of historical inquiry, the role of technology in science, and the socio-political and moral dimensions of science. On this basis, I address the question whether European philosophy of science qualifies as more inclusive
as compared with Anglo-American philosophy of science.
I discuss the problem of the nature of public interests in two steps. Section 1 demonstrates the existence and importance of supra-individual interests by refuting the individualist doctrine that all interests are, or can be reduced to, individual interests. A key role in this argument is played by an analysis of the interests constituted by large technological systems. Next, section 2 argues for the view that supra-individual interests should be understood as being public interests. The role of democracy proves to be crucial in answering the important questions of who constitutes ‘the public’, what may count as public interests, and how particular public interests should be advanced.
For these purposes, we first demonstrate that producing prescription drugs through patenting has serious drawbacks. Second, we develop a concrete alternative (medical research without patents) that is shown to be scientifically, socially and morally preferable, economically and financially profitable, and socio-politically and organizationally practicable.
traced back to antiquity. In ancient times, the Chinese people independently created and developed application-oriented sciences, but
they ignored basic science. In modern times, China learned and introduced Western science and technology as a practical instrument
to protect the nation and make it prosperous and powerful. Through
technology and production, science has been playing an immediate
and major role in the development of socialism since 1949. Since
1978, the Chinese government has always emphasized that science
and technology are the primary productive forces. From ancient times
to the present, the practice-oriented views of science are grounded in
politics. Science has been the handmaiden of politics since the Qin
Dynasty. However, this state of affairs hinders the development of basic
science, a science that is not oriented toward immediate application.
It also hinders open-minded, critical reflection on the downsides
or limits of science, which could draw on broader (moral, spiritual,
or religious) values.
Section 2 reviews and evaluates several answers to the question of what to understand by the notion of a common (or public) good. It discusses both economic and socio-political interpretations of this notion.
In Section 3, I develop an alternative account of the common good of scientific knowledge. This knowledge constitutes a common good if it is both non-exhaustible
and in the public interest. The two notions are equally important, but in this article, the focus is on the former. For reasons of space, a detailed discussion of the latter is impossible; it will be provided in a forthcoming book. My answer to the question posed in the title of this article builds on the critical discussion of extant views in Sections 1 and 2: some aspects of these views are
included in this alternative account, while others are shown to be unhelpful or untenable. The final section discusses some practical implications of this account for the politics of science. The main conclusion is that scientific research should not be privatized through patenting its products.
All country reports are freely accessible. They can be found on the website of the Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, https://social-epistemology.com/2017/07/13/international-responses-to-the-academic-manifesto-reports-from-14-countries-willem-halffman-and-hans-radder/
explanation of the notion of an inclusive (in contrast to a restricted) philosophy of science. This notion of an inclusive philosophy of science is specified by discussing three general topics that seem to be missing from, or are quite marginal in, restricted philosophy of
science. These topics are the philosophy of historical inquiry, the role of technology in science, and the socio-political and moral dimensions of science. On this basis, I address the question whether European philosophy of science qualifies as more inclusive
as compared with Anglo-American philosophy of science.
I discuss the problem of the nature of public interests in two steps. Section 1 demonstrates the existence and importance of supra-individual interests by refuting the individualist doctrine that all interests are, or can be reduced to, individual interests. A key role in this argument is played by an analysis of the interests constituted by large technological systems. Next, section 2 argues for the view that supra-individual interests should be understood as being public interests. The role of democracy proves to be crucial in answering the important questions of who constitutes ‘the public’, what may count as public interests, and how particular public interests should be advanced.