Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:24:37.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence: wanted, alive or dead

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Stathis Psillos
Stathis Psillos*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and History of Science, University of Athens, Athens, Greece Rotman Institute of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
*
*Email: psillos@phs.uoa.gr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is meant to link the philosophical debate concerning the underdetermination of theories by evidence with a rather significant socio-political issue that has been taking place in Canada over the past few years: the so-called ‘death of evidence’ controversy. It places this debate within a broader philosophical framework by discussing the connection between evidence and theory; by bringing out the role of epistemic values in the so-called scientific method; and by examining the role of social values in science. While it should be admitted that social values play an important role in science, the key question for anyone who advocates this view is: what and whose values? The way it is answered makes an important epistemic difference to how the relation between evidence and theory is appraised. I first review various arguments for the claim that evidence underdetermines theory and shows their presuppositions and limitations, using conceptual analysis and historical examples. After broaching the relation between evidence and method in science by highlighting the need to incorporate epistemic values into the scientific method, my discussion focuses on recent arguments for the role of social values in science. Finally, I address the implications of the approach outlined for the current ‘death of evidence’ debate in Canada.

Keywords

underdeterminationevidenceepistemic valuessocial valuesstandpoint epistemologies
Type
Symposium
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , June 2015 , pp. 357 - 381
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2015

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

Achinstein, Peter. 2001. The Book of Evidence. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0195143892.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Elizabeth. 1995. “Knowledge, Human Interests, and Objectivity in Feminist Epistemology.”; Philosophical Topics 23: 27–58.10.5840/philtopics199523213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariew, Roger. 1984. “The Duhem Thesis.”; The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35: 313–325.10.1093/bjps/35.4.313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, Justin. 2013. “State of the Field: Transient Underdetermination and Values in Science.”; Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44: 124–133.10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.09.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo. 2010. “Scientific Reasoning is Material Inference: Combining Confirmation, Discovery, and Explanation.”; International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24: 31–43.10.1080/02698590903467101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo. 2015. “Social Values Influence the Adequacy Conditions of Scientific Theories: Beyond Inductive Risk.”; Canadian Journal of Philosophy. doi:10.1080/00455091.2015.1079004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Matthew J. 2013. “Values in Science beyond Underdetermination and Inductive Risk.”; Philosophy of Science 80: 829–839.10.1086/673720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrier, Martin. 2011. “Underdetermination as an Epistemological Test Tube: Expounding Hidden Values of the Scientific Community.”; Synthese 180: 189–204.10.1007/s11229-009-9597-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, Philip. 2013. “What War on Science?”; Financial Post ,October 21, 2013.Google Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douven, Igor. 2008. “Underdetermination.”; In The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Science, edited by Psillos, S. and Curd, M., 293–301. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre. 1906. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Translated by Wiener, P. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1954.Google Scholar
Dupont, Serge. 2014. “Communicating Science.”; Canadian Government Executive 20 (number 3): 8–10.Google Scholar
Dupuis, John. 2013. “The Canadian War on Science: A long, Unexaggerated, Devastating Chronological Indictment.”; http://the-canadian-war-on-science-a-long-unexaggerated-devastating-chronological-indictment.Google Scholar
Earman, John. 1992. Bayes or Bust? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, Maya J. 2015. “Whose Social Values? Evaluating Canada's ‘Death of Evidence’ Controversy’.”; Canadian Journal of Philosophy. doi:10.1080/00455091.2015.1079003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1993. “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What is ‘Strong Objectivity?’”; In Feminist Epistemologies, edited by Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Elizabeth, 49–82. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kourany, Janet A. 2010. Philosophy of Science after Feminism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732623.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukla, André. 2001. “Theoreticity, Underdetermination, and the Disregard for Bizarre Scientific Hypotheses.”; Philosophy of Science 68: 21–35.10.1086/phos.2001.68.issue-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry. 1990. “Demystifying Underdetermination.”; Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 14: 267–297.Google Scholar
Lequeux, James. 2013. Le Verrier—Magnificent and Detestable Astronomer. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4614-5565-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Likwornik, Helena. 2015. “Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? the Interweaving of Values and Science.”; Canadian Journal of Philosophy. doi:10.1080/00455091.2015.1079002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linnit, Carol. 2013. “Harper's Attack on Science: No Science, No Evidence, No Truth, No Democracy.”; Academic Matters, May 2013.Google Scholar
Llorente, Renzo. 2013. “Marx's Concept of “Universal Class”;: A Rehabilitation.”; Science & Society 77: 536–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 1996. “Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy.”; In: Feminism, Science and the Philosophy of Science, edited by Nelson, Lynn Hankinson and Nelson, Jack, 39–58. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louise, Antony. 2003. “Quine as Feminist: The Radical Import of Naturalized Epistemology.”; In Feminist Interpretations of W. V. Quine, edited by Nelson, Lynn Hankinson and Nelson, Jack, 95–149. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
Lukacs, Georg. 1923. History and Class Consciousness. (English Translation 1971). London: Merlin Press.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1975. “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.”; In Collected Works, edited by Marx, Karl and Frederick, Engels, Vol. 3, 229–346. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl, and Engels, Friedrich. 2002. The Communist Manifesto. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. 1996. “Epistemic Virtue and Theory Appraisal.”; In Realism in the Sciences, edited by Douven, I. and Horsten, L., 13–34. Louven: Louven University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1996. “Empiricism without Dogmas.”; In Feminism, Science and the Philosophy of Science, edited by Nelson, Lynn Hankinson and Nelson, Jack, 95–119. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, Isaac. 2004. Philosophical Writings. (Andrew Janiak ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norton, John D. 2003. “A Material Theory of Induction.”; Philosophy of Science 70: 647–670.10.1086/378858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, Elizabeth. 2006. Feminism and Philosophy of Science: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psillos, Stathis. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Psillos, Stathis. 2006. “Underdetermination Thesis, Duhem-Quine Thesis.”; In Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2nd ed. Vol. 9, edited by Borchert, Donald A., 575–578. Farmington Hills, MI: MacMillan Reference.Google Scholar
Psillos, Stathis. 2011. “Moving Molecules Above the Scientific Horizon: On Perrin's Case for Realism.”; Journal for General Philosophy of Science 42: 339–363.10.1007/s10838-011-9165-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. 1975. “On Empirically Equivalent Systems of the World.”; Erkenntnis 9: 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Railton, Peter. 1984. “Marx and the Objectivity of Science.”; Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 2: 813–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, Peter. 2010. “The Precautionary Principle.”; In Policy Responses to Societal Concerns in Food and Agriculture: Proceedings of an OECD Workshop, 47–58. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 1999. “Testability.”; Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 73: 47–76.10.2307/3131087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, Daniel. 2010. “Epistemic Values and the Argument from Inductive Risk.”; Philosophy of Science 77: 14–34.10.1086/650430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, Daniel. 2015. Philosophy and the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steele, Katie. 2012. “The Scientist qua Policy Advisor Makes Value Judgements.”; Philosophy of Science 79: 893–904.10.1086/667842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Chris. 2013. The War on Science: Muzzled Scientists and Wilful Blindness in Stephen Harper's Canada. Berkeley: Greystone Books.Google Scholar
Williamson, Jon. 2010. In Defence of Objective Bayesianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228003.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar