Reading:
Kitcher, Science Truth, and Democracy, Chapters 8, 9, 10, and 14 (plus the last two pages of chapter 13) and the Afterword
"Feminist Critiques and Conceptions of Objectivity" by Elizabeth Anderson, at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/#object (This is just one section of this long encyclopedia article. The link will take you to the start of section 7, but you'll need to notice when you get to the end of section 7 -- not that there's anything wrong with reading the whole article, but it's not part of the assignment.)
"Bias, Balance, and the Problems of Media Objectivity" by Neil Levy at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2312
"Re-Thinking Objectivity" by Brent Cunningham at http://www.alternet.org/media/16348
(I'll have some comments on this topic up on the discussion forum, as well.)
Write:
1. Kitcher argues, in Chapter 8, that some inquiries ought not to be pursued. He says on page 105 that "Mill's own principles thus support the claim that certain forms of inquiry ought not to be pursued, undercutting the popular -- and, I believe, well-intentioned -- view that the free pursuit of inquiry is always a good thing." How does this argument go? (What are Mill's principles? How do they support the claim that certain sorts of inquiry should not be pursued? What sorts are these?) Does Kitcher's argument succeed in your opinion? (Explain.)
2. At the beginning of Chapter Nine Kitcher asks, "How should inquiry be organized so as to fulfill it's proper function?" I think Chapters Nine and Ten are intended to answer this question. So, what is the proper function of inquiry (according to Kitcher)? Briefly, explain his concept of "well-ordered science." Is this a good answer to the question (about how inquiry should be organized)?
3. In Chapter Fourteen Kitcher tries to give an account of the responsibilities of scientists in the real world (where we don't have a well-ordered science). How does his account go? What do you think of it?
4. After criticizing some standard accounts of objectivity, Elizabeth Anderson sketches a 'feminist account of objectivity' that is based in democratic discussion and is 'pluralist' (that is, that expects there to be an irreducible plurality of valid accounts of anything). How close is this account to Kitcher's? What points of disagreement do you see (if any)?
7. What’s your own assessment of the possibility of objective knowledge of human beings and human cultures?
8. Levy and Cunningham suggest that simply reporting "both sides (or all sides) of the story" is not an adequate conception of journalistic objectivity. Why not? What do they recommend as a better way of understanding the reporter's job?
9. Levy and Cunningham suggest that reporters can serve their readers best by attempting to say what is true, instead of just reporting what various people say (what they claim to be true). Does this mean that they are rejecting Anderson's pluralism about the truth? Do you think that journalists can discover the truth about the sorts of controversies that they must report on (can "adjudicate factual disputes" to use a phrase Cunningham takes from Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman near the end of his article)?