Title: | An Authoritative Attitude to the Limits of Scientific Research |
Other Titles: | An Authoritative Attitude to the Limits of Scientific Research |
Authors: | Chen, Shih-Hsun Fu, Tzu-Keng |
Citation: | CHEN, S., FU, T. An Authoritative Attitude to the Limits of Scientific Research. Papers of ALWS: Crisis and Critique: Philosophical Analysis and Current Events, 2019, roč. 27, č. 1, s. 28-29. ISSN 1022-3398. |
Issue Date: | 2019 |
Publisher: | Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society |
Document type: | článek article |
URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/11025/35153 |
ISSN: | 1022-3398 |
Keywords: | philosophy of science;scientific methodology;value free ideal |
Keywords in different language: | philosophy of science;scientific methodology;value free ideal |
Abstract: | In this paper, we defend the value free ideal (VFI) in the philosophy of science by extending Stephen John’s argument. We do so by showing that the methodological critique about VFI is unsatisfactory and offering an alternative solution by arguing that endorsing the so-called “non-epistemic value” is not the only solution for the uncertain connection between evidence and conclusions. We use the concept “research purposes” or “the purposes of having an individual scientific theory” as an approach to case analysis. We argue that although scientific hypotheses, especially policy-related ones, may not meet main social priorities (such as morality and social justice), and in some cases, will incur a huge social cost, the value judgments included in these hypotheses may not be an inappropriate non-epistemic value. Some of these value judgments can also be a preference for the epistemic value of knowledge based on the premise of maintaining scientific authority. As for the case studies put forward by many philosophers, it might be better to distinguish each case individually by each specific problem to understand whether it is due to the limits of scientific research at that time or some inappropriate value judgments in scientific reasoning per se. |
Abstract in different language: | In this paper, we defend the value free ideal (VFI) in the philosophy of science by extending Stephen John’s argument. We do so by showing that the methodological critique about VFI is unsatisfactory and offering an alternative solution by arguing that endorsing the so-called “non-epistemic value” is not the only solution for the uncertain connection between evidence and conclusions. We use the concept “research purposes” or “the purposes of having an individual scientific theory” as an approach to case analysis. We argue that although scientific hypotheses, especially policy-related ones, may not meet main social priorities (such as morality and social justice), and in some cases, will incur a huge social cost, the value judgments included in these hypotheses may not be an inappropriate non-epistemic value. Some of these value judgments can also be a preference for the epistemic value of knowledge based on the premise of maintaining scientific authority. As for the case studies put forward by many philosophers, it might be better to distinguish each case individually by each specific problem to understand whether it is due to the limits of scientific research at that time or some inappropriate value judgments in scientific reasoning per se. |
Rights: | Plný text není přístupný. © Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society |
Appears in Collections: | Články / Articles (KFI) OBD |
Files in This Item:
File | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|
Chen-Fu_An Authoritative Attitude to the Limits of Scientific Research_ALWS_2019.pdf | 1,63 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open Request a copy |
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/11025/35153
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.