Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:44:08.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Values in Scientific Discovery and Pursuit Alter Theory Appraisal

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

Philosophers of science readily acknowledge that nonepistemic values influence the discovery and pursuit of scientific theories, but many tend to regard these influences as epistemically uninteresting. The present paper challenges this position by identifying three avenues through which nonepistemic values associated with discovery and pursuit in contemporary pollution research influence theory appraisal: (1) by guiding the choice of questions and research projects, (2) by altering experimental design, and (3) by affecting the creation and further investigation of theories or hypotheses. This analysis indicates that the effects of these values are sufficiently complex and epistemically significant to merit further attention.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 76 , Issue 5 , December 2009 , pp. 598 - 611
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.)

References

Ashford, Nicholas, and Miller, Claudia (1998), Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes. 2nd ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Edward (2005), “Historical Blunders: How Toxicology Got the Dose-Response Relationship Half Right”, Historical Blunders: How Toxicology Got the Dose-Response Relationship Half Right 51:643–654.Google ScholarPubMed
Calabrese, Edward, and Baldwin, Linda (2003), “Toxicology Rethinks Its Central Belief”, Toxicology Rethinks Its Central Belief 421:691–692.Google ScholarPubMed
Colborn, Theo, Dumanoski, Dianne, and Myers, Jonathan (1996), Our Stolen Future. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Cranor, Carl (1990), “Some Moral Issues in Risk Assessment”, Some Moral Issues in Risk Assessment 101:123–143.Google Scholar
Das-Munshi, Jayati, Rubin, James, and Wessely, Simon (2006), “Multiple Chemical Sensitivities: A Systematic Review of Provocation Studies”, Multiple Chemical Sensitivities: A Systematic Review of Provocation Studies 118:1257–1264.Google ScholarPubMed
Dorato, Mauro (2004), “Epistemic and Nonepistemic Values in Science”, in Machamer and Wolters 2004, 52–77.Google Scholar
Douglas, Heather (2000), “Inductive Risk and Values in Science”, Inductive Risk and Values in Science 67:559–579.Google Scholar
Elliott, Kevin (2004), “Error as Means to Discovery”, Error as Means to Discovery 71:1–24.Google Scholar
Elliott, Kevin (2008), “Scientific Judgment and the Limits of Conflict-of-Interest Policies”, Scientific Judgment and the Limits of Conflict-of-Interest Policies 15:1–29.Google ScholarPubMed
GAO (General Accounting Office) (1998), Gulf War Illnesses: Federal Research Strategy Needs Reexamination. Washington, DC: GAO. Available at http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/ns98104t.pdf.Google Scholar
GAO (General Accounting Office) (2004), Gulf War Illnesses: DOD's Conclusions about U.S. Troops’ Exposure Cannot Be Adequately Supported. Washington, DC: GAO. Available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04159.pdf.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald (2003), “A New Program for Philosophy of Science?”, A New Program for Philosophy of Science? 70:15–21.Google Scholar
Howard, Don (2006), “Lost Wanderers in the Forest of Knowledge: Some Thoughts on the Discovery-Justification Distinction”, in Schickore, J. and Steinle, F. (eds.), Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction. New York: Springer, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, Richard (1956), “Valuation and Acceptance of Scientific Hypotheses”, Valuation and Acceptance of Scientific Hypotheses 23:237–246.Google Scholar
Joffres, M., Sampalli, T., and Fox, R. (2005), “Physiologic and Symptomatic Responses to Low-Level Substances in Individuals with and without Chemical Sensitivities: A Randomized Controlled Blinded Pilot Booth Study”, Physiologic and Symptomatic Responses to Low-Level Substances in Individuals with and without Chemical Sensitivities: A Randomized Controlled Blinded Pilot Booth Study 113:1178–1183.Google ScholarPubMed
Kaiser, Jocelyn (2003), “Sipping from a Poisoned Chalice”, Sipping from a Poisoned Chalice 302 (October 17): 376–379.Google ScholarPubMed
Kitcher, Philip (2001), Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krimsky, Sheldon (2000), Hormonal Chaos: The Scientific and Social Origins of the Environmental Endocrine Hypothesis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas (1977), “Rationality, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice”, in The Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 320–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry (1977), Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry (1984), Science and Values. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen (1990), Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen (2002), The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machamer, P., and Wolters, G., eds. (2004), Science, Values, and Objectivity. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra (2004), “The Prescribed and Proscribed Values in Science Policy”, in Machamer and Wolters 2004, 245–255.Google Scholar
Nagel, S., Saal, F. vom, Thayer, K., Dhar, M., Boechler, M., and Welshons, W. (1997), “Relative Binding Affinity-Serum Modified Access (RBA-SMA) Assay Predicts the Relative In Vivo Activity of the Xenoestrogens Bisphenol A and Octylphenol”, Relative Binding Affinity-Serum Modified Access (RBA-SMA) Assay Predicts the Relative In Vivo Activity of the Xenoestrogens Bisphenol A and Octylphenol 105:70–76.Google ScholarPubMed
Okruhlik, Kathleen (1994), “Gender and the Biological Sciences”, Gender and the Biological Sciences 20 (suppl.): 21–42.Google Scholar
Rudner, Richard (1953), “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments”, The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments 20:1–6.Google Scholar
Ruphy, Stephanie (2006), “‘Empiricism All the Way Down’: A Defense of the Value-Neutrality of Science in Response to Helen Longino's Contextual Empiricism”, ‘Empiricism All the Way Down’: A Defense of the Value-Neutrality of Science in Response to Helen Longino's Contextual Empiricism 14:189–214.Google Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, Kristin (2006), “Comparativist Philosophy of Science and Population Viability Assessment in Biology: Helping Resolve Scientific Controversy”, Comparativist Philosophy of Science and Population Viability Assessment in Biology: Helping Resolve Scientific Controversy 73 (December): 817–828.Google Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, Kristin (2007), Taking Action, Saving Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staudenmayer, H., Binkley, K., Leznoff, A., and Phillips, S. (2003), “Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance: Part 1: A Causation Analysis Applying Bradford Hill's Criteria to the Toxicogenic Theory”, Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance: Part 1: A Causation Analysis Applying Bradford Hill's Criteria to the Toxicogenic Theory 22:235–246.Google ScholarPubMed
vom Saal, F. (2007), “Hormesis Controversy”, Hormesis Controversy 41: 3.Google Scholar
vom Saal, F., and Hughes, C. (2005), “An Extensive New Literature Concerning Low-Dose Effects of Bisphenol A Shows the Need for a New Risk Assessment”, An Extensive New Literature Concerning Low-Dose Effects of Bisphenol A Shows the Need for a New Risk Assessment 113:926–933.Google ScholarPubMed