David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Social Epistemology 18 (2-3):165-179 (2004)
This article examines the belief among the cultural elites that ?people? should be protected from dangerous knowledge, ?dangerous? in the sense that there are factual statements which may have negative moral and political consequences to society. Such a belief in the negative consequences of dangerous ? that is, politically suspicious ? knowledge represents an intellectual tradition that goes back to Plato and his famous state?utopian work Republic. This article analyses moral interpretations of statements regarding matters of fact (so?called moral reading), and draws conclusions about the reasons why knowledge can be considered dangerous to ?the people? or to some specific groups in the population, such as children, mothers, students, the sick and dying and the working class. The so?called sociobiology debate, a controversy that started with the publication of the zoologist E.O. Wilson?s Sociobiology in 1975, is discussed in this article as a ?case study? of dangerous knowledge
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Petteri Pietikäinen (2004). Truth Hurts: The Sociobiology Debate, Moral Reading and the Idea of 'Dangerous Knowledge'. Social Epistemology 18 (2 & 3):165 – 179.
Petteri Pietikäinen (2004). Truth Hurts: The Sociobiology Debate, Moral Reading and the Idea of 'Dangerous Knowledge'. Social Epistemology 18 (2-3):165-179.
Terence Ball (1980). Dangerous Knowledge? The Self-Subversion of Social Deviance Theory. Inquiry 23 (4):377 – 395.
Elizabeth Tropman (2012). Can Cornell Moral Realism Adequately Account for Moral Knowledge? Theoria 78 (1):26-46.
Steven Pinker, In Defense of Dangerous Ideas In Every Age, Taboo Questions Raise Our Blood Pressure and Threaten Moral Panic. But We Cannot Be Afraid to Answer Them.
Robert L. Simon (1982). The Sociobiology Muddle:On Human Nature. Edward O. Wilson; The Sociobiology Debate. Arthur L. Caplan; Human Sociobiology: A Holistic Approach. Daniel G. Freedman; Sociobiology: Sense or Nonsense? Michael Ruse. [REVIEW] Ethics 92 (2):327-.
Brian Richardson (2004). The Public's Right to Know: A Dangerous Notion. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 19 (1):46 – 55.
Robert A. Phillips (2004). Brief Remarks on the Evolutionary Method. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics 2004:235-238.
David Carr (2010). Dangerous Knowledge: On the Epistemic and Moral Significance of Arts in Education. Journal of Aesthetic Education 44 (3):1-15.
Aaron Zimmerman (2010). Moral Epistemology. Routledge.
Walter Lowe (1986). Dangerous Supplement/Dangerous Memory. Thought 61 (1):34-55.
Daniel Star (2008). Moral Knowledge, Epistemic Externalism, and Intuitionism. Ratio 21 (3):329-343.
Neil Jumonville (2002). The Cultural Politics of the Sociobiology Debate. Journal of the History of Biology 35 (3):569 - 593.
Sarah McGrath (2004). Moral Knowledge by Perception. Philosophical Perspectives 18 (1):209–228.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads7 ( #192,777 of 1,100,101 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #304,144 of 1,100,101 )
How can I increase my downloads?