Expert Judgement without Values

Abstract

Abstract Many contemporary philosophers of science think that it is proper for ethical considerations to play a role in deciding scientific claims. We disagree, not least because this is likely to bring science into disrepute. The paper offers a sustained case for this claim. The paper is organised into the following twelve sections: initial meta-ethical observations; evidence not expedience; Rudner and ‘inductive risk;’ whose values?; which choices?; the current debate; credences versus significance tests; Rudnerian calculations; higher-order judgements; the problem of the priors; against categorical beliefs; and racing to the bottom.