Presentation Information
[U13-04]Bridging Science and Society Through Dialogue: Using Philosophical Dialogue as a Practical Example
*KANG KIWON1 (1.The University of Osaka)
Science has evolved in tandem with human history, undergoing repeated renewal. From the debate over geocentric and heliocentric theories to the reclassification of Pluto, scientific knowledge is refined through observation, discussion, and verification, replaced by better explanations. In this sense, science is inherently provisional, embodying the uncertainty that future knowledge may revise present understanding.
Nevertheless, society values science because it represents the best available knowledge at any given time and serves as the most reliable tool for decision-making. Just as Pluto's reclassification did not render past knowledge worthless—it had functioned adequately within its contemporary framework—science, while not an “absolute truth,” remains a rational basis for reliance until falsification or better explanations emerge. The problem lies in the fact that this rationality is not necessarily shared by society at large.
From the perspective of those without specialized knowledge, science often appears as a massive black box. For instance, in public debates surrounding healthcare or the environment, differing viewpoints are sometimes presented, making it difficult for the general public to independently assess “how much uncertainty to tolerate and what evidence should guide their judgment.” Since simply choosing conclusions by majority vote cannot necessarily be considered a scientific attitude, a state of suspended judgment (indecision) is structurally prone to arise.
Therefore, in recent years, researchers have been strongly urged to fulfill their social accountability and participate in dialogue. However, since research remains their primary duty, the time and institutional resources available for dialogue are constrained, often resulting in mere one-way knowledge transfer. Consequently, the black box persists, and the distance from science can become fixed without the very questions needed to reach understanding ever being raised.
Based on this awareness, this presentation reports on the experience of philosophical dialogue as an alternative approach to dialogue surrounding science. Unlike formats centered on lectures or explanations, such as science cafes, philosophical dialogue starts from the naive discomforts or anxieties participants raise on the spot. It then constructs questions while examining the meanings of concepts (e.g., safety, risk, responsibility, conviction, fairness). Here, rather than experts presenting “correct questions” in advance, questions emerging from everyday life serve as clues. This allows us to visualize what is being presupposed, where value judgments begin, and which uncertainties are points of contention.
The presenter has continuously conducted philosophy dialogues primarily on the theme of AI within Osaka Prefecture for approximately two years. This presentation organizes and presents the following insights from that practice: (1) the types of questions raised by citizens, (2) the assumptions experts tend to overlook, and (3) how trust in science is reframed when uncertainty is treated not as a defect to be eliminated but as a condition to be shared and judged upon.
In conclusion, trust in science can be reconstructed not as blind faith in correctness, but as trust in the procedures of justification under uncertainty. We aim to show that philosophical dialogue, as a practice that initiates these procedures from citizens' questions, can become one methodology supporting science's autonomy and harmony with society.
Nevertheless, society values science because it represents the best available knowledge at any given time and serves as the most reliable tool for decision-making. Just as Pluto's reclassification did not render past knowledge worthless—it had functioned adequately within its contemporary framework—science, while not an “absolute truth,” remains a rational basis for reliance until falsification or better explanations emerge. The problem lies in the fact that this rationality is not necessarily shared by society at large.
From the perspective of those without specialized knowledge, science often appears as a massive black box. For instance, in public debates surrounding healthcare or the environment, differing viewpoints are sometimes presented, making it difficult for the general public to independently assess “how much uncertainty to tolerate and what evidence should guide their judgment.” Since simply choosing conclusions by majority vote cannot necessarily be considered a scientific attitude, a state of suspended judgment (indecision) is structurally prone to arise.
Therefore, in recent years, researchers have been strongly urged to fulfill their social accountability and participate in dialogue. However, since research remains their primary duty, the time and institutional resources available for dialogue are constrained, often resulting in mere one-way knowledge transfer. Consequently, the black box persists, and the distance from science can become fixed without the very questions needed to reach understanding ever being raised.
Based on this awareness, this presentation reports on the experience of philosophical dialogue as an alternative approach to dialogue surrounding science. Unlike formats centered on lectures or explanations, such as science cafes, philosophical dialogue starts from the naive discomforts or anxieties participants raise on the spot. It then constructs questions while examining the meanings of concepts (e.g., safety, risk, responsibility, conviction, fairness). Here, rather than experts presenting “correct questions” in advance, questions emerging from everyday life serve as clues. This allows us to visualize what is being presupposed, where value judgments begin, and which uncertainties are points of contention.
The presenter has continuously conducted philosophy dialogues primarily on the theme of AI within Osaka Prefecture for approximately two years. This presentation organizes and presents the following insights from that practice: (1) the types of questions raised by citizens, (2) the assumptions experts tend to overlook, and (3) how trust in science is reframed when uncertainty is treated not as a defect to be eliminated but as a condition to be shared and judged upon.
In conclusion, trust in science can be reconstructed not as blind faith in correctness, but as trust in the procedures of justification under uncertainty. We aim to show that philosophical dialogue, as a practice that initiates these procedures from citizens' questions, can become one methodology supporting science's autonomy and harmony with society.