Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:43:04.764Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nonepistemic Values and the Multiple Goals of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Kevin C. Elliott  and
Daniel J. McKaughan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent efforts to argue that nonepistemic values have a legitimate role to play in assessing scientific models, theories, and hypotheses typically either reject the distinction between epistemic and nonepistemic values or incorporate nonepistemic values only as a secondary consideration for resolving epistemic uncertainty. Given that scientific representations can legitimately be evaluated not only based on their fit with the world but also with respect to their fit with the needs of their users, we show in two case studies that nonepistemic values can play a legitimate role as factors that override epistemic considerations in assessing scientific representations for practical purposes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

We thank Martin Carrier, Heather Douglas, Ashley Graham Kennedy, Hugh Lacey, Angela Potochnik, and three anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments on previous versions of this article. We also benefited from discussions with the participants at the “Cognitive Attitudes and Values in Science” conference at the University of Notre Dame, the “Society for Philosophy of Science in Practice” conference in Toronto, and the “State’s Stake in Science” conference at the University of Bielefeld. This article was made possible through the support of a grant provided to Daniel J. McKaughan from The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion at St. Edmund’s College, Cambridge, and the Templeton World Charity Foundation as well as by sabbatical leave provided to Kevin C. Elliott by the University of South Carolina.

References

Biddle, Justin. 2013. “State of the Field: Transient Underdetermination and Values in Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44:124–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Matthew. 2013. “Values in Science beyond Underdetermination and Inductive Risk.” Philosophy of Science 80 (Proceedings), forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jonathan. 1992. An Essay on Belief and Acceptance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cranor, Carl. 1995. “The Social Benefits of Expedited Risk Assessments.” Risk Analysis 15:353–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranor, Carl 2011. Legally Poisoned: How the Law Puts Us at Risk from Toxicants. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin. 2011. Is a Little Pollution Good for You? Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin 2013. “Douglas on Values: From Indirect Roles to Multiple Goals.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44:375–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin, and Willmes, David. 2013. “Cognitive Attitudes and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 80 (Proceedings), forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Froelich, Adrienne. 2003. “Army Corps: Retreating or Issuing a New Assault on Wetlands.” BioScience 53:130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald. 2004. “How Models Are Used to Represent Reality.” Philosophy of Science 71 (Proceedings): 742–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald 2006. Scientific Perspectivism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hough, Palmer, and Robertson, Morgan. 2009. “Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Where It Comes from, What It Means.” Wetlands Ecology and Management 17:15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Don. 2006. “Lost Wanderers in the Forest of Knowledge: Some Advice on How to Think about the Relation between Discovery and Justification.” In Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction, ed. Schickore, Jutta and Steinle, Friedrich, 3–22. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1977. “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice.” In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, 320–39. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacey, Hugh. 2005. Values and Objectivity in Science: The Current Controversy about Transgenic Crops. Lanham, MD: Lexington.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1996. “Cognitive and Non-cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy.” In Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science, ed. Nelson, Lynn Hankinson and Nelson, Jack, 39–58. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Jack 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Matthewson, John, and Weisberg, Michael. 2009. “The Structure of Tradeoffs in Model Building.” Synthese 170:169–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKaughan, Daniel. 2007. “Toward a Richer Vocabulary for Epistemic Attitudes: Mapping the Cognitive Landscape.” PhD diss., University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
McKaughan, Daniel, and Elliott, Kevin. 2013. “Backtracking and the Ethics of Framing: Lessons from Voles and Vasopressin.” Accountability in Research 20:206–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, William. 2004. “From Past to Present: A Historical Perspective on Wetlands.” In Wetlands, ed. Spray, Sharon and McGlothlin, Karen, 84–100. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Michaels, David. 2008. Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitsch, William, and Gosselink, James. 2007. Wetlands. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Nordmann, Alfred, Radder, Hans, and Schiemann, Gregor. 2011. “Science after the End of Science? An Introduction to the ‘Epochal Break Thesis.’” In Science Transformed? Debating Claims of an Epochal Break, ed. Nordmann, Alfred, Radder, Hans, and Schiemann, Gregor, 1–15. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
NRC (National Research Council). 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Potochnik, Angela. 2012. “Feminist Implications of Model-Based Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43:383–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, Morgan. 2004. “The Neoliberalization of Ecosystem Services: Wetland Mitigation Banking and Problems in Environmental Governance.” Geoforum 35:361–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, Morgan 2006. “The Nature That Capital Can See: Science, State, and Market in the Commodification of Ecosystem Services.” Environment and Planning D, Society and Space 24:367–87.Google Scholar
Rooney, Phyllis. 1992. “On Values in Science: Is the Epistemic/Non-epistemic Distinction Useful?” In Proceedings of the 1992 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, ed. Hull, David, Forbes, Micky, and Okruhlik, Kathleen, 13–22. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Ruhl, J. B., and Gregg, R. Juge. 2001. “Integrating Ecosystem Services into Environmental Law: A Case Study of Wetlands Mitigation Banking.” Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20:365–92.Google Scholar
Salzman, James, and Ruhl, J. B.. 2000. “Currencies and the Commodification of Environmental Law.” Stanford Law Review 53:607–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, Daniel. 2010. “Epistemic Values and the Argument from Inductive Risk.” Philosophy of Science 77:14–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, Daniel, and Whyte, Kyle P.. 2012. “Environmental Justice, Values, and Scientific Expertise.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 22:163–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Fraassen, Bas. 2008. Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, Michael. 2007. “Three Kinds of Idealization.” Journal of Philosophy 104:639–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar