Scientific Values and Objectivity

Question 1

Scientism

Answer 1

Not anti-science per se; what they are opposed to is the privileged status accorded to science, particularly natural science, in modern society, and the assumption that the methods of science are necessarily applicable to every subject matter.

Question 2

Three questions for objectivity

Answer 2

(1) How do we understand objectivity?
(2) Is it attainable?
(3) Is it desirable?

Question 3

Two Types of Objectivity

Answer 3

Product Objectivity: Science is objective in that its products (e.g. theories, laws, data, and observations) constitute an accurate representation of the external world.

Process Objectivity: Science is objective in that the processes and methods used are neither dependent on contingent social and ethical values, nor on the individual biases of its practitioners

Question 4

Product Objectivity/Ontological Objectivity:

Answer 4

Objectivity as faithfulness to facts

Question 5

The View From Nowhere

Answer 5

On this view we can understand objectivity in terms of faithfulness to facts by holding that facts which are independent of any perspective are objective.

Presupposes two kinds of qualities:
Perspective-sensitive qualities: Qualities that vary with the perspective
one takes.
Perspective-insensitive qualities: Qualities that remain constant through
changes of perspective.

Perspective insensitive qualities are objective properties.

Question 6

Process Objectivity/Epistemological Objectivity:

Answer 6

Objectivity as an absence of normative commitments and the value-free ideal.
Objectivity through contextual empiricism.

Question 7

Theory-Ladenness of Observation

Answer 7

Observation is often the deciding factor in falsifying or verifying theories, and deciding between competing theories.

relationship between theory and observation is not straightforward.

If observations are to decide whether a theory is more or less faithful to the facts then we need to view the observations outside a certain perspective.

if Kuhn is right that scientists always view research problems through the lens of a paradigm (perspective), then
observations will be theory-laden.

Question 8

Forms of Theory-Ladenness: Semantics

Answer 8

The meaning of an observational term is partially determined by theoretical presuppositions (cf. Newtonian and
Relativistic understanding of ‘mass’). There is no theory-independent observation language!

Question 9

Forms of Theory-Ladenness: Perceptual

Answer 9

Theories held by an investigator impinge on the perceptions of the phenomenon

Question 10

The Experimenter’s Regress

Answer 10

In order to know whether the relevant apparatus producing the
results is correct, one first needs to know whether the apparatus
producing the result is reliable.

But, one does not know whether the apparatus is reliable unless
one knows that it produces the correct results in the first place,
and so on ad infinitum.

Question 11

Does the experiments regress mkae scientific results arbitrary?

Answer 11

No, Collins just means: experimental results do not represent the world according to absolute conception

Experimental results are produced jointly (or codetermined) by the world, scientific apparatuses, and psychological and social factors of the scientists/ communities.

The facts and phenomena of science, on this view, are therefore necessarily perspectival.

Question 12

Objectivity as the Absence of Normative Commitments and the Value-Free Ideal

Answer 12

A popular response to these challenges is to argue that objectivity is to be found in the absence of values in scientific reasoning or the scientific method.

Process objectivity: Science can and should be value-free and science is
objective to the extent its practice is free of contextual values (moral, political,
social, etc.)

Question 13

Values in Science: Epistemic Values

Answer 13

Examples: Parsimony, simplicity, predictive accuracy, explanatory power and scope, coherence with other accepted theories, unification, etc.

indicative of a good scientific theory and figure in standard arguments for preferring
one theory over another.

Question 14

Values in Science: Contextual Values

Answer 14

Social, moral, political, and cultural values that influence how we do, or ought to do, science.

Equality, justice, pleasure, conservation of the natural environment, and diversity

Question 15

Four stages where values may affect science:

Answer 15

1. Choice of scientific research problem.
2. Gathering of evidence in relation to the problem.
3. Acceptance of a theory or hypothesis as an adequate answer to the research problem on the basis of evidence.
4. The proliferation and application of scientific research results.

Question 16

The Value-Free Ideal (VFI)

Answer 16

Scientist should strive to minimise the influence of contextual values on scientific reasoning (in gathering evidence and assessing/accepting theories).

Question 17

Value-Neutrality Thesis (VNT)

Answer 17

Value-Neutrality Thesis: Scientist can–at least in principle–gather evidence and assess/accept theories without making contextual value judgements.

This thesis is not normative or prescriptive. It only concerns whether judgements scientists make are, or possibly could be, free of contextual values.

Question 18

Value-Laden Thesis (VLT)

Answer 18

Scientists cannot gather evidence and assess/accept theories without making contextual values judgements.

if accepted, a re-definition of scientific objectivity is needed

Question 19

VNT and the Assessment and Acceptance of Scientific Hypotheses

Answer 19

A standard way of arguing for the plausibility of VNT, is by invoking the distinction between context of discovery and context of justification.

In the context of discovery, one might allow contextual values to intrude. Even if social, political, ethical, or personal biases influence a scientific discovery, its objectivity is measured in the context of justification.

As such, we can allow for contextual values to impinge on scientists, or a scientific community, as long as the context of justification remains value-free

Question 20

Doubting “In Principle” Value-Free Assessment/Acceptance of Hypotheses

Answer 20

Even in the context of justification, there will be some evaluative judgements based on contextual values.

When assessing a hypothesis, scientists must accept or reject it.
No hypothesis is beyond doubt.
Accepting or rejecting involves a chance of being mistaken.
Hence, the decision is also a function of the importance, in an ethical sense, of mistakenly accepting or rejecting the hypothesis.
Thus, ethical judgements and contextual values enter into the context of justification (or hypothesis assessment).

Question 21

Doubting the Reality of the Epistemic/Contextual Distinction

Answer 21

in choosing epistemic values in context of hypothesis assessment, we are already engaged in a value-laden enterprise.
Choosing between such values is a value-laden choice.

Question 22

The Contextualist Approach to Objectivity

Answer 22

Scientific knowledge is essentially a social product.

Because of this, our conception of scientific objectivity must directly engage with the social process that generates knowledge.

Objectivity thus emerges through scientists’ open discourse

The capacity of scientific knowledge to undergo inter-subjective and transformative criticism is what secures its objectivity

Question 23

inter-Subjective and Transformative Criticism

Answer 23

Longino’s Contextual Empiricism regards “a method of inquiry as objective to the degree that it permits transformative criticism” (Longino 1990, p. 76

Avenues for criticism: Criticism is an essential part of scientific institutions\

Shared standards: The community must shares a set of epistemic and contextual values for assessing theories.\

Community response: The beliefs of the scientific community as a whole must over time change in response to the critical discussion taking place within it.

Equality of intellectual authority: Intellectual authority must be shared equally among qualified practitioners.

Question 24

How does objectivity as a function of intersubjective and transformative criticism bear on the three initial questions?

Answer 24

1. How do we understand it?
2. Is it attainable?
3. Is it desirable?
   It seems that it can avoid the standard challenges which
   the other approaches to scientific objectivity faces.