David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Foundations of Science 12 (3):257-268 (2007)
In pure science, the standard approach to non-epistemic values is to exclude them as far as possible from scientific deliberations. When science is applied to practical decisions, non-epistemic values cannot be excluded. Instead, they have to be combined with (value-deprived) scientific information in a way that leads to practically optimal decisions. A normative model is proposed for the processing of information in both pure and applied science. A general-purpose corpus of scientific knowledge, with high entry requirements, has a central role in this model. Due to its high entry requirements, the information that it contains is sufficiently reliable for the vast majority of practical purposes. However, for some purposes, the corpus needs to be supplemented with additional information, such as scientific indications of danger that do not satisfy the entry requirements for the corpus. The role of non-epistemic values in the evaluation of scientific information should, as far as possible, be limited to determining the level of evidence required for various types of practical decisions.
|Keywords||Corpus Values in science Epistemic values Non-epistemic values Scientific values Applied science Pure science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Sven Ove Hansson (2004). Philosophical Perspectives on Risk. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 8 (1):10-35.
Richard Rudner (1953). The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments. Philosophy of Science 20 (1):1-6.
Sven Ove Hansson (2006). Falsificationism Falsified. Foundations of Science 11 (3):275-286.
Richard C. Jeffrey (1956). Valuation and Acceptance of Scientific Hypotheses. Philosophy of Science 23 (3):237-246.
Carl G. Hempel (1960). Inductive Inconsistencies. Synthese 12 (4):439-69.
Citations of this work BETA
Renzo Zanotti & Daniele Chiffi (forthcoming). A Normative Analysis of Nursing Knowledge. Nursing Inquiry:n/a-n/a.
Robert W. P. Luk (2010). Understanding Scientific Study Via Process Modeling. Foundations of Science 15 (1):49-78.
Sven Ove Hansson (2009). Cutting the Gordian Knot of Demarcation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23 (3):237-243.
Similar books and articles
Wenceslao J. González (2008). Economic Values in the Configuration of Science. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 96 (1):85-112.
Torsten Wilholt (2009). Bias and Values in Scientific Research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40 (1):92-101.
Ingo Brigandt (2012). The Dynamics of Scientific Concepts: The Relevance of Epistemic Aims and Values. In Uljana Feest & Friedrich Steinle (eds.), Scientific Concepts and Investigative Practice. De Gruyter 3--75.
Wayne C. Myrvold (2012). Epistemic Values and the Value of Learning. Synthese 187 (2):547-568.
William A. Rottschaefer (2003). Assessing the Role of Non-Epistemic Feminist Values in Scientific Inquiry. Behavior and Philosophy 31:225 - 249.
Noretta Koertge (2000). Science, Values, and the Value of Science. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):57.
Heather Douglas (2000). Inductive Risk and Values in Science. Philosophy of Science 67 (4):559-579.
Sven Diekmann & Martin Peterson (2013). The Role of Non-Epistemic Values in Engineering Models. Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (1):207-218.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads50 ( #68,426 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #84,767 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?