David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Perspectives on Science 8 (4):367-379 (2000)
: Scientists are divided on the status of hypothesis H that low doses of ionizing radiation (under 20 rads) cause hormetic (or non-harmful) effects. Military and industrial scientists tend to accept H, while medical and environmental scientists tend to reject it. Proponents of the strong programme claim this debate shows that uncertain science can be clarified only by greater attention to the social values in(integral)uencing it. While they are in part correct, this paper argues that methodological analyses (not merely attention to social values) also can help clarify uncertain science. The paper analyzes five measurement uncertainties, as well as seven methodological value judgments, relevant to H. Using criteria of internal and external consistency, as well as predictive power, it argues that metascience also helps resolve this debate. And if so, then value-laden, policy-relevant science may need, not only more attention to social values in order to resolve and to clarify disputes, but also more conceptual and methodological analyses of science. (This paper suggests what such methodological analyses might be like and uses the case of low-dose risks from radiation to illustrate its points, while a companion paper ("Chemical Hormesis, Conceptual Clarification, and the Warrant for Policy-Driven Science") in this same issue of POS suggests what such conceptual analyses might be like and uses the case of low-dose risks from chemicals to illustrate its points.) If this paper's thesis holds in the very politicized "hard case" of radiation hormesis, then it suggests that the metascientists may be right about what is also often necessary to clarify scientific disputes
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Gerald Doppelt (1990). The Naturalist Conception of Methodological Standards in Science: A Critique. Philosophy of Science 57 (1):1-19.
Malcolm Williams (2006). Can Scientists Be Objective? Social Epistemology 20 (2):163 – 180.
Kevin Elliott (2004). Error as Means to Discovery. Philosophy of Science 71 (2):174-197.
Kristin Shrader-Frechette (2010). Conceptual Analysis and Special-Interest Science: Toxicology and the Case of Edward Calabrese. Synthese 177 (3):449 - 469.
Kristan Shrader-Frechete (2001). Using a Thought Experiment to Clarify a Radiobiological Controversy. Synthese 128 (3):319 - 342.
Kevin C. Elliott (2006). A Novel Account of Scientific Anomaly: Help for the Dispute Over Low-Dose Biochemical Effects. Philosophy of Science 73 (5):790-802.
Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Better Policy Through Better Science: Using Metascience to Improve Dose-Response Curves in Biology and in ICRP Ecological Risk Assessment.
Kristin Shrader‐Frechette (2004). Using Metascience to Improve Dose‐Response Curves in Biology: Better Policy Through Better Science. Philosophy of Science 71 (5):1026-1037.
Kevin Elliott (2000). Conceptual Clarification and Policy-Related Science: The Case of Chemical Hormesis. Perspectives on Science 8 (4):346-366.
Kristin Shrader-Frechette (2001). Radiobiological Hormesis, Methodological Value Judgments, and Metascience. Perspectives on Science 8 (4):367-379.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads97 ( #44,662 of 1,935,135 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #434,530 of 1,935,135 )
How can I increase my downloads?