9 found
Order:
  1.  19
    Citizen Science and Scientific Objectivity: Mapping Out Epistemic Risks and Benefits.Baptiste Bedessem & Stéphanie Ruphy - 2020 - Perspectives on Science 28 (5):630-654.
    Given the importance of the issue of scientific objectivity in our democratic societies and the significant development of citizen science, it is crucial to investigate how citizen science may either undermine or foster scientific objectivity. This paper identifies a variety of epistemic risks and benefits that participation of lay citizens in scientific inquiries may bring. It also discusses concrete actions and pending issues that should be addressed in order to foster objectivity in citizen science programs.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  2.  29
    Scientific Autonomy and the Unpredictability of Scientific Inquiry: The Unexpected Might Not Be Where You Would Expect.Baptiste Bedessem & Stéphanie Ruphy - 2019 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 73:1-7.
  3.  27
    The Division of Cognitive Labor: Two Missing Dimensions of the Debate.Baptiste Bedessem - 2018 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 9 (1):3.
    The question of the division of cognitive labor has given rise to various models characterizing the way scientists should distribute their efforts. These models often consider the scientific community as a self-governed sphere constituted by rational agents making choices on the basis of fixed rules. Such models have recently been criticized for not taking into account the real mechanisms of science funding. Hence, the question of the utility of the DCL models in guiding science policy remains an open one. In (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  4.  26
    SMT or TOFT? How the Two Main Theories of Carcinogenesis Are Made Incompatible.Baptiste Bedessem & Stéphanie Ruphy - 2015 - Acta Biotheoretica 63 (3):257-267.
    The building of a global model of carcinogenesis is one of modern biology’s greatest challenges. The traditional somatic mutation theory is now supplemented by a new approach, called the Tissue Organization Field Theory. According to TOFT, the original source of cancer is loss of tissue organization rather than genetic mutations. In this paper, we study the argumentative strategy used by the advocates of TOFT to impose their view. In particular, we criticize their claim of incompatibility used to justify the necessity (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  5.  16
    The Division of Cognitive Labor: Two Missing Dimensions of the Debate.Baptiste Bedessem - 2018 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 9 (1):1-16.
    The question of the division of cognitive labor has given rise to various models characterizing the way scientists should distribute their efforts. These models often consider the scientific community as a self-governed sphere constituted by rational agents making choices on the basis of fixed rules. Such models have recently been criticized for not taking into account the real mechanisms of science funding. Hence, the question of the utility of the DCL models in guiding science policy remains an open one. In (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  6.  14
    Serendipity: An Argument for Scientific Freedom?Stéphanie Ruphy & Baptiste Bedessem - unknown
    The unpredictability of the development and results of a research program is often invoked in favor of a free, desinterested science that would be led mainly by scientific curiosity, in contrast with a use-inspired science led by definite practical expectations. This paper will challenge a crucial but underexamined assumption in this line of defense of scientific freedom, namely that a free science is the best system of science to generate unexpected results. We will propose conditions favoring the occurrence of unexpected (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  7.  20
    Should We Fund Research Randomly? An Epistemological Criticism of the Lottery Model as an Alternative to Peer-Review for the Funding of Science.Baptiste Bedessem - forthcoming - Research Evaluation.
    The way research is, and should be, funded by the public sphere is the subject of renewed interest for sociology, economics, management sciences, and more recently, for the philosophy of science. In this contribution, I propose a qualitative, epistemological criticism of the funding by lottery model, which is advocated by a growing number of scholars as an alternative to peer-review. This lottery scheme draws on the lack of efficiency and of robustness of the peer-review based evaluation to argue that the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  8.  7
    Two Conceptions of the Sources of Conservatism in Scientific Research.Baptiste Bedessem - 2019 - Synthese 198 (7):1-18.
    The issue of the conservatism of scientific research questions the nature and the role of the internal and external forces controlling the emergence of new research questions or problems, the exploration of risky directions of research, or the use of risky research methods. This issue has recently gained a new framing in connection with the growing importance of the peer-review process and of the social and economic pressures weighing on the funding of scientific research. Current literature then interrogates the external (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  9.  24
    SMT and TOFT Integrable After All: A Reply to Bizzarri and Cucina.Baptiste Bedessem & Stphanie Ruphy - 2017 - Acta Biotheoretica 65 (1):81-85.
    In a previous paper recently published in this journal, we argue that the two main theories of carcinogenesis should be considered as compatible, at the metaphysical, epistemological and biological levels. In a reply to our contribution, Bizzarri and Cucina claim we are wrong since SMT and TOFT are opposite and incompatible paradigms. Here, we show that their arguments are not satisfactory. Indeed, the authors go through the same mistakes that we already addressed. In particular, they confuse reductionism, as an ontological (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation