Abstract
AbstractStraightening the current ‘value-laden turn’ (VLT) in the philosophical literature on values in science, and reviving the legacy of the value-free ideal of science (VFI), this paper argues that the influence of extra-scientific values should be minimised—not excluded—in the core phase of scientific inquiry where claims are accepted or rejected. Noting that the original arguments for the VFI (ensuring the truth of scientific knowledge, respecting the autonomy of science results users, preserving public trust in science) have not been satisfactorily addressed by proponents of the VLT, it proposes four prerequisites which any model for values in the acceptance/rejection phase of scientific inquiry should respect, coming from the fundamental requirement to distinguish between facts and values: (1) the truth of scientific knowledge must be ensured; (2) the uncertainties associated with scientific claims must be stated clearly; (3) claims accepted into the scientific corpus must be distinguished from claims taken as a basis for action. An additional prerequisite of (4) simplicity and systematicity is desirable, if the model is to be applicable. Methodological documents from international institutions and regulation agencies are used to illustrate the prerequisites. A model combining Betz’s conception (stating uncertainties associated with scientific claims) and Hansson’s corpus model (ensuring the truth of the scientific corpus and distinguishing it from other claims taken as a basis for action) is proposed. Additional prerequisites are finally suggested for future research, stemming from the requirement for philosophy of science to self-reflect on its own values: (5) any model for values in science must be descriptively and normatively relevant; and (6) its consequences must be thoroughly assessed.
Funder
HORIZON EUROPE Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions
MTA Lendület Values and Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference90 articles.
1. Ali, A., Vitulano, L., Lee, R., Weiss, T. R., & Colson, E. R. (2014). Experiences of patients identifying with chronic Lyme disease in the healthcare system: A qualitative study. BMC Family Practice, 15(1), 79.
2. Anderson, E. (2004). Uses of value judgments in science: A general argument, with lessons from a case study of feminist research on divorce. Hypatia, 19(1), 1–24.
3. ANSES (2013). Évaluation des risques du bisphénol A (BPA) pour la santé humaine. Avis de l’Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail. Tome 1. Rapport d’expertise collective.
4. ANSES. (2021). Avis de l’anses relatif à l’élaboration d’une méthodologie d’évaluation du caractère PE des substances chimiques en vue d’un classement en catégories avérées, présumées, suspectées. Rapport d’expertise collective de l’Agence nationale de sécurtié sanitaire, de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail.
5. Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533(7604), 452–454.
Cited by
1 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
1. Materializing values;Synthese;2024-06-21