Objectivity for the research worker
-
Published:2021-09
Issue:3
Volume:11
Page:
-
ISSN:1879-4912
-
Container-title:European Journal for Philosophy of Science
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Euro Jnl Phil Sci
Author:
van Dongen NoahORCID, Sikorski Michał
Abstract
AbstractIn the last decade, many problematic cases of scientific conduct have been diagnosed; some of which involve outright fraud (e.g., Stapel, 2012) others are more subtle (e.g., supposed evidence of extrasensory perception; Bem, 2011). These and similar problems can be interpreted as caused by lack of scientific objectivity. The current philosophical theories of objectivity do not provide scientists with conceptualizations that can be effectively put into practice in remedying these issues. We propose a novel way of thinking about objectivity for individual scientists; a negative and dynamic approach.We provide a philosophical conceptualization of objectivity that is informed by empirical research. In particular, it is our intention to take the first steps in providing an empirically and methodologically informed inventory of factors that impair the scientific practice. The inventory will be compiled into a negative conceptualization (i.e., what is not objective), which could in principle be used by individual scientists to assess (deviations from) objectivity of scientific practice. We propose a preliminary outline of a usable and testable instrument for indicating the objectivity of scientific practice.
Funder
European Research Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,Philosophy
Reference99 articles.
1. Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., Sarafoglou, A., Kekecs, Z., Kucharskỳ, S, Benjamin, D., Chambers, C.D., Fisher, A., Gelman, A., Gernsbacher, M.A., & et al. (2020). A consensus-based transparency checklist. Nature human behaviour, 4(1), 4–6. 2. Altmejd, A., Almenberg, A.D., Forsell, E., Ho, T-H, Huber, J., Imai, T., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Nave, G., & Camerer, C. (2019). Predicting the replicability of social science lab experiments. PloS One, 14(12), e0225826. 3. Anvari, F., & Lakens, D. (2018). The replicability crisis and public trust in psychological science. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 3 (3), 266–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2019.1684822. 4. Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J.M. (2012). The Rules of the Game Called Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7 (6), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459060. 5. Bem, D J (2011). Feeling the future: experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 100(3), 407–425.
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|