Can We Comply with the Ideal of Value-Freedom? A Reply to Miller’s Critique of the Ideal of Value-Freedom in Science

Stine Djørup; Bjørn Gunnar Hallsson; Klemens Kappel

doi:10.1080/21550085.2019.1581414

Can We Comply with the Ideal of Value-Freedom? A Reply to Miller’s Critique of the Ideal of Value-Freedom in Science

Stine Djørup, Bjørn Gunnar Hallsson, Klemens Kappel

Institut for Kommunikation

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to discuss Miller’s recent claim that 1) the ideal of value-freedom is implausible because evidence from experimental psychology reveals how scientific reasoning is value-laden and biased, and 2) that the ideal of value-freedom requires the exercise of complex conceptual distinctions that scientists cannot make. According to Miller, the ideal of value-freedom, therefore, violates the principle that ought implies can. The paper replies 1) that experimental psychology may show that science is value-laden in some sense, yet this does not imply that the ideal of value-freedom should be rejected as unachievable. This is because scientists can reduce the influence from non-epistemic values, inter alia, by employing debiasing techniques and other scientific procedures. The paper also replies that 2) the ideal of value-freedom in science does not violate the principle that ought implies can because scientists do not seem to need a philosophical vocabulary in order to make the relevant distinctions between different epistemic attitudes.

Originalsprog	Dansk
Tidsskrift	Ethics, Policy & Environment
ISSN	2155-0085
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2019.1581414
Status	Udgivet - 1 mar. 2019

Adgang til dokumentet

10.1080/21550085.2019.1581414

Can We Comply with the Ideal of Value Freedom A Reply to Miller s Critique of the Ideal of Value Freedom in ScienceForlagets udgivne version, 910 KB

Citationsformater

@article{06038d062a3749dcab3428f3a7cbbbaa,

title = "Can We Comply with the Ideal of Value-Freedom? A Reply to Miller{\textquoteright}s Critique of the Ideal of Value-Freedom in Science",

abstract = "The purpose of this paper is to discuss Miller{\textquoteright}s recent claim that 1) the ideal of value-freedom is implausible because evidence from experimental psychology reveals how scientific reasoning is value-laden and biased, and 2) that the ideal of value-freedom requires the exercise of complex conceptual distinctions that scientists cannot make. According to Miller, the ideal of value-freedom, therefore, violates the principle that ought implies can. The paper replies 1) that experimental psychology may show that science is value-laden in some sense, yet this does not imply that the ideal of value-freedom should be rejected as unachievable. This is because scientists can reduce the influence from non-epistemic values, inter alia, by employing debiasing techniques and other scientific procedures. The paper also replies that 2) the ideal of value-freedom in science does not violate the principle that ought implies can because scientists do not seem to need a philosophical vocabulary in order to make the relevant distinctions between different epistemic attitudes.",

author = "Stine Dj{\o}rup and Hallsson, {Bj{\o}rn Gunnar} and Klemens Kappel",

year = "2019",

month = mar,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1080/21550085.2019.1581414",

language = "Dansk",

journal = "Ethics, Policy & Environment",

issn = "2155-0085",

publisher = "Routledge",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Can We Comply with the Ideal of Value-Freedom? A Reply to Miller’s Critique of the Ideal of Value-Freedom in Science

AU - Djørup, Stine

AU - Hallsson, Bjørn Gunnar

AU - Kappel, Klemens

PY - 2019/3/1

Y1 - 2019/3/1

N2 - The purpose of this paper is to discuss Miller’s recent claim that 1) the ideal of value-freedom is implausible because evidence from experimental psychology reveals how scientific reasoning is value-laden and biased, and 2) that the ideal of value-freedom requires the exercise of complex conceptual distinctions that scientists cannot make. According to Miller, the ideal of value-freedom, therefore, violates the principle that ought implies can. The paper replies 1) that experimental psychology may show that science is value-laden in some sense, yet this does not imply that the ideal of value-freedom should be rejected as unachievable. This is because scientists can reduce the influence from non-epistemic values, inter alia, by employing debiasing techniques and other scientific procedures. The paper also replies that 2) the ideal of value-freedom in science does not violate the principle that ought implies can because scientists do not seem to need a philosophical vocabulary in order to make the relevant distinctions between different epistemic attitudes.

AB - The purpose of this paper is to discuss Miller’s recent claim that 1) the ideal of value-freedom is implausible because evidence from experimental psychology reveals how scientific reasoning is value-laden and biased, and 2) that the ideal of value-freedom requires the exercise of complex conceptual distinctions that scientists cannot make. According to Miller, the ideal of value-freedom, therefore, violates the principle that ought implies can. The paper replies 1) that experimental psychology may show that science is value-laden in some sense, yet this does not imply that the ideal of value-freedom should be rejected as unachievable. This is because scientists can reduce the influence from non-epistemic values, inter alia, by employing debiasing techniques and other scientific procedures. The paper also replies that 2) the ideal of value-freedom in science does not violate the principle that ought implies can because scientists do not seem to need a philosophical vocabulary in order to make the relevant distinctions between different epistemic attitudes.

U2 - 10.1080/21550085.2019.1581414

DO - 10.1080/21550085.2019.1581414

M3 - Tidsskriftartikel

SN - 2155-0085

JO - Ethics, Policy & Environment

JF - Ethics, Policy & Environment

ER -