Volume 2, Issue 4 (2022)
jpt 2022, 2(4): 355-368 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Abdollahi J, Sajadi S. A Critical Examination of Douglas' Argument to Justify the Involvement of Non-Epistemic Values in Science. jpt 2022; 2 (4) :355-368
URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-34-63987-en.html
URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-34-63987-en.html
1- Department of Philosophy of Science, Faculty of Philosophy of Science, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Physics Education, Shahid Beheshti Center, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran , hedayatsajadi@gmail.com
2- Department of Physics Education, Shahid Beheshti Center, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran , hedayatsajadi@gmail.com
Abstract: (635 Views)
Non-epistemic values in scientific reasoning bring many discussions. One way to justify the role of these values is the argument from inductive risk. The aim of this article is to examine a version of this argument that is presented by Douglas. By raising the question about "evidential sufficiency", Douglas advances her argument to justify the influence of non-epistemic values. Assuming the correctness of Douglas' argument, we try to determine the answer of "evidential sufficiency" based on the conclusion of her argument. Even considering both epistemic and non-epistemic values, we will show that the question of sufficiency will not have a proper answer. Because to determine evidential sufficiency, we will either confront circularity or force to add other ambiguous things. Also, we will explain that Douglas should have sought the "evidential sufficiency" by emphasizing more on the practice of scientists in actuality, in which there is no requirement to incorporate scientific claims with policy-making claims. This criticism is sympathetic to some other criticisms of Douglas, according to which she incorporated pragmatic and epistemic domains of science.
Keywords: : inductive risk, scientific reasoning, epistemic values, non-epistemic values, internal standards
Article Type: Original Research |
Subject:
Philosophy of Science (Analytical)
Received: 2022/09/3 | Accepted: 2022/11/25 | Published: 2023/03/1
Received: 2022/09/3 | Accepted: 2022/11/25 | Published: 2023/03/1
References
1. Betz G (2017). Why the argument from inductive risk doesn't justify incorporating non-epistemic values in scientific reasoning, in: current controversies in values and science. Oxfordshire: Routledge. [Link] [DOI:10.4324/9781315639420-7]
2. Bhaskar R (2008). A realist theory of science. Oxfordshire: Routledge. [Link]
3. Chalmers A (1990). Science and its fabrication. Chicago: Univ Of Minnesota Press. [Link]
4. Douglas H (2017). Why inductive risk requires values in science, in: current controversies in values and science. Oxfordshire: Routledge. [Link] [DOI:10.4324/9781315639420-6]
5. Douglas H (2000). Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science 67(4):559-579. [Link] [DOI:10.1086/392855]
6. Feyerabend P (1987). Against method: Outline of an anarchist theory of knowledge. London: Verso. [Link]
7. Javadpoor G (2020). A critical evaluation of value-free science based on the induction risk argument. Journal of Philosophical Theological Research. 22(2):73-95. [Persian] [Link]
8. John S (2015). Inductive risk and the contexts of communication. Synthese. 192(1):79-96. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11229-014-0554-7]
9. Elliott KC, Steel D (2017). Current controversies in values and science. New York: Routledge. [Link] [DOI:10.4324/9781315639420]
10. Kuhn TS (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Link]
11. Longino H (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1515/9780691209753]
12. Mohammadamini M (2021). The relationship between the role of non-epistemic values and the role of evidence in scientific theories. Metaphysics. 13(32):41-58. [Persian] [Link]
13. Reiss J, Sprenger J (2020). Scientific objectivity, the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2020 edition). Zalta EZ (ed). Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/scientific-objectivity/ [Link]
14. Resnik D (2008). The ethics of science, The routledge companion to philosophy of scince in psillos. Oxfordshire: Routledge. [Link]
15. Rooney P (2017). The borderlands between epistemic and non-epistemic values, in: Current controversies in values and science. Oxfordshire: Routledge. pp. 31-45. [Link] [DOI:10.4324/9781315639420-3]
16. Rudner R (1953). The scientist qua scientist makes value judgments. Philosophy of Science. 20(1);1-6. [Link] [DOI:10.1086/287231]
17. Wilholt T (2013). Epistemic trust in science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 64(2):233-253. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/bjps/axs007]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |