On Science, Philosophy, and Public Debate

Philosophers are fond of saying that the way you conceive of a problem, theoretically or practically, already determines a range of solutions you might end up proposing. This is often considered the domain and 'practical use' of philosophy; not to answer questions but figuring out which questions to ask. Empirical science, then, deals in actual knowledge of the world around us, and is therefore able to answer questions that one formulates for some practical sake. Economists can tell us what happens when the Fed prints money to help banks, ecologists can tell us when a particular patch of sea is fished beyond its carrying capacity, and physicists can tell us how to produce energy in new ways.
So lets apply this distinction to what we are doing here; to figure out from which perspective(s) we can meaningfully analyse the moral problems posed by the economical, ecological, and political crises we read about all the time. It should be quite clear that figuring out which questions to ask is not just the job of the philosopher. In most cases you don't just need the analytical training of the philosopher to formulate the right questions and points-of-view, you also need to know something of the object-field you're talking about to find out whether the concepts you use apply well enough to the problems at hand. For example; depending on which economist you take seriously, the current worldwide recession could be a problem of failed regulation of the financial markets, it can also be a problem of greed, maybe the crisis stems from the inherent contradictions of capitalism itself, or according to others it's the free markets' self-cleansing process. Depending on your beliefs on technology and energy resources, whether these beliefs are considered and well-argued or complete faith, you will have a different idea of the possible futures for the real economy.
These scientific problems, or at least problems of applied philosophy of science, show that you need to have some sort of understanding of the matters of fact you are talking about to make a judgment about the ethical side of the topic at hand. And as it is my goal on this blog to find the right moral questions to ask, this kind of philosophy needs science just as science needs philosophy. Without a critical understanding of disputes within the sciences we cannot possibly decide which narrative to cast our moral discussions in. To put it in a simpler way; differences of opinion on the scientific level (do CO2 emissions lead to increased worldwide temperatures?) so often lead to disagreement on the moral level (Should we make a serious effort to reduce our CO2 emissions?).
This realisation is especially relevant for people who are, like me, convinced that main stream science cannot give us a satisfactory analysis of some deep crises that confront today's societies. If you are dealing with peak oil, the limits to growth more generally, trying to revive discussions about economic democracy, or understand the current economic collapse in terms like Richard Wolff's analysis (in systemic terms of unsustainability of lending workers' money in stead of increasing wages), you first need to convince people that your theoretical approach to the topic is legitimate. Only after that can you start an ethical discussion based on acceptance of a new analysis. So if we are going to understand, let alone raise awareness of the moral imperatives in this relatively new world of scarcity, climate change, and collapse of the debt bubble that allowed so much concentration of wealth, we have to fight on both these fronts.
But something is happening; the old free market narrative that was held up to disguise a system of state support for big corporations has now become so unbelievable that a lot of critical people are trying to reorient themselves. In these times there is an opportunity for ideas that are developed in the margins to enter the main stream. If we get this right, we might just be able to build the foundations to have public discussions about some real issues at last.