Objectivity in Science

Stephen John

doi:10.1017/9781009063647

Series: Elements in the Philosophy of Science

Objectivity in Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 May 2021

Stephen John

Show author details

Stephen John: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge

Summary

Objectivity is a key concept both in how we talk about science in everyday life and in the philosophy of science. This Element explores various ways in which recent philosophers of science have thought about the nature, value and achievability of objectivity. The first section explains the general trend in recent philosophy of science away from a notion of objectivity as a 'view from nowhere' to a focus on the relationship between objectivity and trust. Section 2 discusses the relationship between objectivity and recent arguments attacking the viability or desirability of 'value free' science. Section 3 outlines Longino's influential 'social' account of objectivity, suggesting some worries about drawing too strong a link between epistemic and ethical virtues. Section 4 turns to the value of objectivity, exploring concerns that notions of objectivity are politically problematic, and cautiously advocating in response a view of objectivity in terms of invariance.

Element contents

Summary
References

Get access

Keywords

philosophy of science objectivity bias trust values in science

Type: Element
Information: Series: Elements in the Philosophy of Science

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009063647 [Opens in a new window]

Online ISBN: 9781009063647

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication: 10 June 2021

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.)

References

Alexandrova, A. (2017) A Philosophy for the Science of Well Being. New York, NY: Oxford University PressCrossRef Google Scholar

Anderson, E. (2004) ‘Uses of value judgments in science: A general argument, with lessons from a case study of feminist research on divorce’. Hypatia, 19(1), 1–24CrossRef Google Scholar

Axtell, G. (2015) Objectivity. Cambridge: Polity PressGoogle Scholar

Badano, G., John, S., & Junghans, T. (2017) ‘NICE’s Cost-Effectiveness Threshold’ in McClimans, L. (ed) Measurement in Medicine: Philosophical Essays on Assessment and Evaluation. London: Rowman and LittlefieldGoogle Scholar

Bertolaso, M., & Sterpetti, F. (2019) ‘Evidence amalgamation, plausibility, and cancer research’. Synthese, 196(8), 3279–3317Google Scholar

Betz, G. (2013) ‘In defence of the value free ideal’. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 3(2), 207–220Google Scholar

Biddle, J. B., & Leuschner, A. (2015) ‘Climate skepticism and the manufacture of doubt: can dissent in science be epistemically detrimental?’ European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5(3), 261–278Google Scholar

Biddle, J. B., & Kukla, R. (2017) ‘The geography of epistemic risk’ in Elliott, K., ed. Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 215–238Google Scholar

Bird, A. (2019) ‘Systematicity, knowledge, and bias. How systematicity made clinical medicine a science’. Synthese, 196(3), 863–879Google Scholar

Bolinska, A. (2013) ‘Epistemic representation, informativeness and the aim of faithful representation’. Synthese, 190(2), 219–234Google Scholar

Borgerson, K. (2011) ‘Amending and defending critical contextual empiricism’. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 1(3), 435Google Scholar

Bowcott, O. (2019) ‘Judge rules against researcher who lost job over transgender tweets’. The Guardian 18 Dec 2019 www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/18/judge-rules-against-charity-worker-who-lost-job-over-transgender-tweets Google Scholar

Brown, M. J. (2019) ‘Is science really value free and objective?’ in McKain, K. and Kampouaris, K. (eds) What is Scientific Knowledge?: An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. London: RoutledgeCrossRef Google Scholar

Churchman, C. (1948) ‘Statistics, Pragmatics, Induction’. Philosophy of Science, 15, 249–268Google Scholar

Culp, S. (1995). ‘Objectivity in experimental inquiry: breaking data-technique circles’. Philosophy of Science, 62(3), 438–458Google Scholar

Daston, L. and Galison, P. (2007) Objectivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Douglas, H. (2000) ‘Inductive risk and values in science’. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 559–579Google Scholar

Douglas, H. (2004) ‘The irreducible complexity of objectivity’. Synthese, 138(3), 453–473Google Scholar

Douglas, H. (2009) Science, Policy and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh PressGoogle Scholar

Fine, A.I. (1984) ‘The Natural Ontological Attitude’, in Leplin, J., (ed.), Scientific Realism. University of California Press, pp. 261–277.Google Scholar

Fine, A. (1998) ‘The viewpoint of no-one in particular’. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 72(2),7–20Google Scholar

Fricker, M. (2007) Epistemic Injustice. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRef Google Scholar

Gaukroger, S. (2012) Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (Eds). (2002). Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Goldman, A. I. (2001) ‘Experts: Which ones should you trust?’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1), 85–110.Google Scholar

Goldman, A. I. (2002) ‘Knowledge and social norms. Review of the fate of knowledge, by H. Longino’. Science 296, 2148–2149Google Scholar

Hacking, I. (2015) ‘Let’s not talk about objectivity’ in Padovani, F., Eichardson, H & Tsou, Y. (eds) Objectivity in Science. Cham:SpringerGoogle Scholar

Harding, S. (1991) Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca: Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar

Harding, S. (2015) Objectivity and diversity. University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Hawley, K. (2014) ‘Trust, distrust and commitment’. Noûs, 48(1), 1–20.Google Scholar

Hicks, D. (2011) ‘Is Longino’s conception of objectivity feminist?’ Hypatia, 26(2), 333–351Google Scholar

Holman, B., & Geislar, S. (2018) ‘Sex drugs and corporate ventriloquism: how to evaluate science policies intended to manage industry-funded bias’. Philosophy of Science, 85(5), 869–881CrossRef Google Scholar

Intemann, K. (2011) ‘Diversity and dissent in science: Does democracy always serve feminist aims?’ in Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 111–132Google Scholar

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (1998) ‘Principles governing IPCC work’. <https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf>>Google Scholar

Irzik, G., & Kurtulmus, F. (2019) ‘What is epistemic public trust in science?’ The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 70(4), 1145–1166Google Scholar

Janack, M. (2002) ‘Dilemmas of objectivity’. Social Epistemology, 16(3), 267–281.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jeffrey, Richard (1956) ‘Valuation and acceptance of scientific hypotheses’. Philosophy of Science, 23(3), 237–246Google Scholar

John, S. (2015) ‘The example of the IPCC does not vindicate the Value Free Ideal: a reply to Gregor Betz’. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5(1), 1–13Google Scholar

John, S. (2018) ‘Epistemic trust and the ethics of science communication: Against transparency, openness, sincerity and honesty’. Social Epistemology, 32(2), 75–87Google Scholar

John, S. (2019) ‘Science, truth and dictatorship: Wishful thinking or wishful speaking?’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 78, 64–72.Google Scholar

Jukola, S. (2015) ‘Meta-analysis, ideals of objectivity, and the reliability of medical knowledge’. Science & Technology StudiesGoogle Scholar

Kitcher, P. (1990) The Advancement of Science. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Koskinen, I. (2018) ‘Defending a risk account of scientific objectivity’. The British Journal for the Philosophy of ScienceGoogle Scholar

Kuhn, T. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Kuhn, T. (1977) ‘Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice’ in Kuhn, T.S., (ed), The Essential Tension – Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Kukla, R. (2012) ‘“Author TBD”: Radical collaboration in contemporary biomedical research’ Philosophy of Science, 79(5), 845–858Google Scholar

Kuo, L. (2019) ‘China’s leaders seeking to ‘draw strength from weakness’ in 2020’. The Guardian 28 Dec 2019 www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/28/chinas-leaders-seeking-to-draw-strength-from-weakness-in-2020 Google Scholar

Lacey, H. (2005) Is Science Value-Free? London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar

Levi, I. (1960) ‘Must the scientist make value judgments?’ Journal of Philosophy, 57, 345–357Google Scholar

Lewens, T. (2016) The Meaning of Science: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. London: Hachette UKGoogle Scholar

Lloyd, E.A. (1995) ‘Objectivity and the double standard for feminist epistemologies’. Synthese, 104(3), 351–381Google Scholar

Lloyd, E.A. (1998) The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar

Lloyd, E.A. (2005) The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Longino, H. (1990) Science as Social Knowledge Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar

Longino, H. (1996) ‘Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy’, in Nelson L.H. and Nelson J. (eds) Feminism, Science and the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 39–58Google Scholar

Longino, H (2002) The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar

Longino, H (2013) Studying Human Behaviour. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar

Ludwig, D. (2015) ‘Ontological Choices and the Value-Free Ideal’. Erkenntnis, 81(6), 1–20.Google Scholar

Mackie, J.L. (1977) Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. London: Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar

McMullin, E. (1982) ‘Values in science’. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 3–28Google Scholar

Megill, A. (1994) ‘Introduction: Four Senses of Objectivity’ in Megill, A. (ed) Rethinking Objectivity. Durham: Duke.Google Scholar

Menzies, P., & Price, H. (1993) ‘Causation as a secondary quality’. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 44(2), 187–203Google Scholar

Nagel, T. (1986) The View From Nowhere. New York, NY: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Nozick, R. (2001) Invariances. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Peters, U. (2020) ‘Illegitimate Values, Confirmation Bias, and Mandevillian Cognition in Science’. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1093/bjps/axy079 Google Scholar

Planck, M.K. (1950) Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers. New York: Philosophical LibraryGoogle Scholar

Porter, T. (1994) Trust in Numbers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar

Proctor, R.N. (2001) ‘Commentary: Schairer and Schöniger’s forgotten tobacco epidemiology and the Nazi quest for racial purity’. International Journal of Epidemiology, 30(1), 31–34CrossRef Google Scholar

Railton, P. (1984, January) ‘Marx and the Objectivity of Science’. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 813–826Google Scholar

Reiss, J. and Sprenger, J. (2017) ‘Scientific objectivity’ in Zalta E.N. (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/scientific-objectivity/Google Scholar

Rudner, R. (1953) ‘The scientist qua scientist makes value judgments’. Philosophy of Science, 20(1), 1–6Google Scholar

Schickore, J. (2008) ‘Doing science, writing science’. Philosophy of Science, 75(3), 323–343Google Scholar

Schroeder, S.A. (2017) ‘Using democratic values in science: an objection and (partial) response’. Philosophy of Science, 84(5), 1044–1054Google Scholar

Seaman, A. (2019) ‘We need a grown-up debate about climate change’. Spiked Online 29 April 2019, www.spiked-online.com/2019/04/29/we-need-a-grown-up-debate-about-climate-change/Google Scholar

Sen, A. (2009) The Idea of Justice Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Solomon, M. (1994) ‘Social empiricism’. Nous, 28(3), 325–343Google Scholar

Solomon, M. (2007) Social Empiricism. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Steel, D. (2010) ‘Epistemic values and the argument from inductive risk’. Philosophy of Science, 77(1), 14–34CrossRef Google Scholar

Stegenga, J. (2011) ‘Is meta-analysis the platinum standard?’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 42(2011), 497–507CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Steele, K. (2012) ‘The scientist qua policy advisor makes value judgments’. Philosophy of Science, 79(5), 893–904Google Scholar

Wilholt, T. (2009) ‘Bias and values in scientific research’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 40(1), 92–101Google Scholar

Wilholt, T. (2012) ‘Epistemic trust in science’. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 64, 233–253Google Scholar

Williams, B. (1985) Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. London: FontanaGoogle Scholar

Wright, J. (2018) ‘Rescuing objectivity: A Contextualist proposal’. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 48(4), 385–406Google Scholar

Wylie, A. (2003) ‘Why Standpoint Matters’, in Figueroa, R. and Harding, S. (eds), Science and Other Cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology. New York, NY and London: Routledge, pp. 26–48Google Scholar

Wynne, B. (1996) ‘May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert–lay knowledge divide’ in Lash, S., Szerszynski, B. & Wynne, B. (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London: SAGEGoogle Scholar

Wray, K.B. (1999) ‘A defense of Longino’s social epistemology’. Philosophy of Science, 66, S538–S552.Google Scholar

Zammito, J. (2004) A nice derangement of epistemes Chicago, IL:University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Element contents

Objectivity in Science

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

Save element to Kindle

Save element to Dropbox

Save element to Google Drive