Well-Ordered Science

Why do we do science? At the heart of every answer to this question is one of two basic points, to improve our lives by developing understandings that are useful to society or to improve our understanding in a purely epistemic fashion, that is, because the new knowledge is interesting. Given this, science has two sorts of problems that it sets out to solve, the type that yields obviously useful answers and the type which yields answers that are purely interesting. Typical examples of these two types of projects are medical research for the former, and theoretical physics projects, such as the Large Hadron Collider, for the latter. Both types of projects require funding and both have impacts on the lives of every person in society, especially in the case of government funding which is essentially sourced from the public. How then should we decide which problems are awarded funding and which problems aren't? These ideas are put forward by the philosopher Philip Kitcher in his quest to form an idealised picture of “well-ordered science”. According to Kitcher, well-ordered science should satisfy the preferences of all the citizens of society. The ideal way in which to achieve this is by no means one that can easily be adopted by a practical society, a fact that Kitcher himself admits, however it may work as a tool to judge our current distribution of funds and a guideline to improve these systems. According to Kitcher all members of the community should be equally informed and have equal say in the distribution of funds, the process he outlines is long winded and impractical and often in stark contrast to what actually makes up the decision making process for scientific funding in today’s society.  The idea of well-ordered science was recently introduced to me and I decided to take a look at a case which might enlighten me as to where our current society sits on the well-ordered scale.

Policy forums are designed in order to educate and discuss important ideas and problems which require solving and practices which call for implementation. Science magazine details the proceedings of some of these forums with an occasional article. At the beginning of this year the idea of restoration took precedent in one such forum with an article by Menz, Kingsley and Hobbs who detailed some of the “Hurdles and Opportunities for Landscape-Scale Restoration”.  The United Nations Conferences on sustainable development are the closest our society has come to the idealised aspects of well-ordered science, with the aim of uniting multidisciplinary figures in order to best solve the problems facing the world today. This policy forum outlines a task set as a priority after the Rio+20 Conference in 2012 which is estimated to cost US $18billion per year while contributing US$84 billion per year to the global economy. The target set is to restore 150 million hectares of disturbed and degraded land by 2020, the cost of which cannot be taken lightly. Aspects of well-ordered science can in some ways lend to the successful implantation of a project of this magnitude.

The authors of this paper outline four main points which they believe are critical in ensuring that the restoration projects sustain and enhance ecological values in an efficient and scalable manner:

1.  Identify focal regions

In order to maximise the effect of these projects they should be applied in ecosystems which are likely to respond favourably to the efforts of practitioners. Menz et al (2013) wisely point out that this is most effectively done through collaboration of multiple sectors which can lend information in order to maximize the effectiveness of the resources.  They suggest areas providing important ecosystem services as well as those effecting large percentages of the population

2.  Identify knowledge gaps and prioritize research needs

It is of little use if areas are chosen for restoration when very little is known about the functioning of the local ecosystem or the value the system offers. In these cases successful restoration is very unlikely. In order to avoid wasted efforts, interdisciplinary programs which encourage involvement from umbrella organizations, universities, locals in the area of interest, and funding agencies is necessary. This integration moves society towards well-ordered science.

3. Create restoration hubs

Part of developing a citizenship capable of well-ordered science is effective communication and education of members in order to close the science-practice gap. The authors recognise the importance of this and encourage a dialogue between restoration ecologists and participators. Given the communication technology of this age there is little excuse for there to not be open communication between researchers, practitioners, policy makers and the public.

4. Ensure political viability of restored ecosystems

Integrating the goals of scientists and politicians allows for a combined motivation to continue and maintain restoration work as well as working towards conservation which may limit the need for expensive restoration projects. Both social and scientific members of society need to shift their focus and widen their range in order to contemplate and facilitate the needs of the other sectors. In particular, scientists need to understand the responsibility that knowledge of these systems awards them, and shift focus away from journal writing and towards educating the public and political parties.

My first introduction to well-ordered science left me with a sense of hope and the idea that with current technology and the large problems attached to anthropogenic influences which by definition affect all of us, mankind has the opportunity to gather together and take these lessons to ensure a sustainable future for our species as well as the millions of others inhabiting this planet. This article by Menz et al (2013) provided additional comfort and the understanding that I am entering a field of people collectively working to use the knowledge we have to solve problems and improve the state of the environment. I also learned this week that we can take a few very useful lessons from philosophers of science in order to streamline the way we think about the world and the way we implement the findings of our research.

Reference

Menz, M. H., Dixon, K. W., & Hobbs, R. J. (2013). Hurdles and opportunities for landscape-scale restoration. Science, 339(6119), 526-527.