David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophy 100 (2):55-79 (2003)
Science's priority rule rewards those who are first to make a discovery, at the expense of all other scientists working towards the same goal, no matter how close they may be to making the same discovery. I propose an explanation of the priority rule that, better than previous explanations, accounts for the distinctive features of the rule. My explanation treats the priority system, and more generally, any scheme of rewards for scientific endeavor, as a device for achieving an allocation of resources among different research programs that provides as much benefit as possible to society. I show that the priority system is especially well suited to finding an efficient allocation of resources in those situations, characteristic of scientific inquiry, in which any success in an endeavor subsequent to the first success brings little additional benefit to society.
|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
Peter Godfrey-Smith (2008). Recurrent Transient Underdetermination and the Glass Half Full. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 137 (1):141 - 148.
Kevin J. S. Zollman (2010). The Epistemic Benefit of Transient Diversity. Erkenntnis 72 (1):17 - 35.
Darrell P. Rowbottom (2011). Kuhn Vs. Popper on Criticism and Dogmatism in Science: A Resolution at the Group Level. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (1):117-124.
Kevin J. S. Zollman (2007). The Communication Structure of Epistemic Communities. Philosophy of Science 74 (5):574-587.
Similar books and articles
Peter Vallentyne (2000). Equality, Efficiency, and the Priority of the Worse-Off. Economics and Philosophy 16 (1):1-19.
A. A. Derksen (1986). The Justificational Priority of Science Over the Philosophy of Science: Laudan's Science and Hypothesis. Philosophy of Science 53 (2):259-264.
Marc Fleurbaey, Bertil Tungodden & Peter Vallentyne (2009). On the Possibility of Nonaggregative Priority for the Worst Off. Social Philosophy and Policy 26 (1):258-285.
Ben Eggleston (2007). Conflicts of Rules in Hooker's Rule-Consequentialism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37 (3):329-349.
Kelly Trogdon (2009). Monism and Intrinsicality. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (1):127 – 148.
Cynthia M. Connine & Paul C. LoCasto (2000). Inhibition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (3):328-328.
Lucy Frith (1999). Priority Setting and Evidence Based Purchasing. Health Care Analysis 7 (2):139-151.
Michael Strevens (2011). Economic Approaches to Understanding Scientific Norms. Episteme 8 (2):184-200.
Robert S. Taylor (2004). Self-Realization and the Priority of Fair Equality of Opportunity. Journal of Moral Philosophy 1 (3):333-347.
Added to index2010-04-16
Total downloads46 ( #91,827 of 1,907,930 )
Recent downloads (6 months)18 ( #35,550 of 1,907,930 )
How can I increase my downloads?