Straightening the ‘value-laden turn’: minimising the influence of extra-scientific values in science

Author:

Stamenkovic PhilippeORCID

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

Subject

General Social Sciences,Philosophy

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.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3