Authors
Abstract
This paper examines the scientific controversy over the yields of genetically modified [GM] crops as a case study in epistemologically deep disagreements. Appeals to “the evidence” are inadequate to resolve such disagreements; not because the interlocutors have radically different metaphysical views (as in cases of incommensurability), but instead because they assume rival epistemological frameworks and so have incompatible views about what kinds of research methods and claims count as evidence. Specifically, I show that, in the yield debate, proponents and opponents of GM crops cite two different sets of claims as evidence, which correspond to two rival epistemological frameworks, classical experimental epistemology and Nancy Cartwright's evidence for use. I go on to argue that, even if both sides of the debate accepted Cartwright's view, they might still disagree over what counts as evidence, because evidence for use ties standards of evidence to what is sometimes called the “context of application.”.
Keywords genetically modified organisms  feed the world  evidence  scientific controversies  Nancy Cartwright  controlled experiments
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.02.002
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,337
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Inductive Risk and Values in Science.Heather Douglas - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (4):559-579.
A New Direction for Science and Values.Daniel J. Hicks - 2014 - Synthese 191 (14):3271-95.
Evidence.Thomas Kelly - 2006 - Philosophy Compass.

View all 28 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Genetically Modified Crops, Inclusion, and Democracy.Daniel J. Hicks - 2017 - Perspectives on Science 25 (4):488-520.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

GM Crops: Patently Wrong? [REVIEW]James Wilson - 2007 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (3):261-283.
GM Crops, the Hubris Argument and the Nature of Agriculture.Payam Moula - 2015 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (1):161-177.
Assessing the Value of Transgenic Crops.Hugh Lacey - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (4):497-511.
Emotion, Depth and Bodily Being: A Study of Affective Space.Suzanne Laba Cataldi - 1991 - Dissertation, Rutgers the State University of New Jersey - New Brunswick

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-03-20

Total views
160 ( #73,316 of 2,508,119 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,711 of 2,508,119 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes