Home > Positioning > Persons > Kitcher

Philip Kitcher (1947–)

Kitcher is a philosopher of science whose work spans the epistemology of science, the philosophy of biology, the philosophy of mathematics, and ethics. His most distinctive contribution to the philosophy of science is the theory of the organisation of cognitive labour: the argument that the social structure of science — how resources, attention, and researchers are distributed across research programmes — is a proper subject of epistemological analysis, not merely of sociology. The Advancement of Science (1993) developed this into a comprehensive account of scientific progress that engages Hull’s selectional model while arguing that Hull’s credit-economy framework captures the competitive dynamics of science but misses the epistemic ones — the fact that science makes progress not merely because ideas compete but because the competition is structured in ways that tend toward truth.

Life

Born 20 August 1947 in London, England. Educated at Christ’s College, Cambridge (BA in mathematics and history and philosophy of science), and Princeton University (PhD in philosophy, 1974). Taught at the University of Vermont, Vassar College, the University of California at San Diego, and the University of Minnesota. Professor of philosophy at Columbia University (2002–present), where he holds the John Dewey Chair of Philosophy — a title that reflects his engagement with the pragmatist tradition.

Kitcher’s range is unusual: he has published on the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of biology, the social epistemology of science, ethical theory, and the public role of science. The Lives to Come (1996) addressed the ethical implications of the Human Genome Project; Science, Truth, and Democracy (2001) argued that the direction of scientific research should be subject to democratic deliberation; The Ethical Project (2011) offered a naturalistic genealogy of ethics.

The organisation of cognitive labour

Kitcher’s central contribution to the epistemology of science. The argument: the reliability of science depends not only on individual scientists’ methods but on how the scientific community distributes its researchers across competing research programmes.

The larger polemical target of The Advancement of Science (subtitled “Science Without Legend, Objectivity Without Illusions”) was the sociology of scientific knowledge — the social-constructivist turn of the 1980s associated with the Edinburgh Strong Programme, David Bloor, and Barry Barnes. The constructivists had argued that the content of scientific knowledge is determined by social factors — interests, power, negotiation — rather than by nature. Kitcher’s response was not to deny the social dimension but to make it epistemic: yes, science is social, and its social structure is what makes it reliably truth-tracking. The cognitive-labour model is the constructive alternative — an account of how social organisation produces epistemic progress rather than merely reflecting social interests.

The division-of-labour model. Consider a scientific question with two possible approaches, one more promising than the other. If all scientists pursue the more promising approach, the community may miss the truth if the less promising approach turns out to be correct. Optimal epistemic strategy for the community requires that some researchers pursue the less promising line — even though, for each individual, the more promising approach is the rational choice. The social structure of science (competition for credit, the reward structure for novelty, the distribution of funding) can, under some conditions, produce the right distribution of effort across approaches — not because any individual is acting for the common good but because the incentive structure channels individual ambition into a collectively productive pattern.

Kitcher’s model sits within a broader field of social epistemology — Alvin Goldman’s reliabilist social epistemology, Helen Longino’s critical contextual empiricism, and Miriam Solomon’s social empiricism all address the same territory. Longino’s critique is the sharpest interlocutor: she has argued that Kitcher’s model still smuggles in individual rationality as the baseline — that the division of labour produces good outcomes only if the individual scientists making career decisions are individually rational, which pushes the epistemological problem back one level rather than solving it socially.

The critique of Hull. Hull’s Science as a Process (1988) argued that science is a genuinely selective process: theories compete, and the credit economy provides the selection mechanism. Kitcher’s response: the selectional model captures the competitive dynamics but does not explain why the competition tends toward truth. A credit economy in which false but appealing ideas outcompete true but dull ones would be equally “selective” but not epistemically productive. What makes science work is not selection alone but the specific structure of the epistemic environment — the relationship between credit and empirical success, the role of replication, the norms of evidence — that makes the competition truth-tracking. Hull describes the engine; Kitcher asks why the engine runs in the right direction.

Philosophy of biology and mathematics

Philosophy of biology. Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature (1985) was one of the most sustained philosophical critiques of the sociobiological programme of Wilson and Dawkins. Kitcher argued that the inferences from animal behaviour to human nature were methodologically weak — that the adaptationist programme, as applied to human social behaviour, relied on just-so stories rather than rigorous testing. The critique was influential in establishing the standards of evidence that evolutionary psychology would later need to meet.

Philosophy of mathematics. The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge (1983) argued for a naturalistic account of mathematical knowledge — that mathematical knowledge is not a priori (knowable independently of experience) but empirically grounded, originating in practices of measurement, counting, and spatial reasoning that are extended by idealisation and abstraction. The account challenged the dominant Platonist and logicist views and placed mathematical epistemology in continuity with the epistemology of the natural sciences.

Where Kitcher stops

The organisation-of-cognitive-labour model is a normative model — it describes how the community should distribute its resources for optimal epistemic results. Whether actual scientific communities approximate the model is an empirical question the model does not answer. The incentive structures of real science — funding pressures, tenure requirements, the prestige hierarchy of journals and institutions — may or may not channel individual ambition into collectively productive patterns. Kitcher’s model shows that the right social structure could make science reliably truth-tracking; it does not show that the existing social structure is the right one.

The critique of sociobiology was powerful on methodological grounds but did not settle the substantive question of whether evolutionary approaches to human behaviour are productive. The subsequent development of evolutionary psychology — with more rigorous testing standards, cross-cultural data, and experimental methods — has addressed some of Kitcher’s objections while leaving others open. Whether the field has matured into a legitimate science or merely refined its just-so stories is debated.

The naturalistic ethics programme (The Ethical Project, 2011) argues that ethical concepts emerged through a historical process of social problem-solving and that ethical progress is real but contingent. The account is descriptively plausible but normatively thin: if ethics is a product of social negotiation, what grounds the claim that some outcomes are genuinely better than others? Kitcher’s answer — that ethical progress consists in expanding the capacity for sympathetic responsiveness — has been challenged as importing a substantive moral commitment (sympathy matters) into a framework that claims to be merely naturalistic.

Key works

See also: Hull · Dawkins · Dewey · Darwinism