Element contents
Objectivity in Science
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 May 2021
Summary
Objectivity is a key concept both in how we talk about science in everyday life and in the philosophy of science. This Element explores various ways in which recent philosophers of science have thought about the nature, value and achievability of objectivity. The first section explains the general trend in recent philosophy of science away from a notion of objectivity as a 'view from nowhere' to a focus on the relationship between objectivity and trust. Section 2 discusses the relationship between objectivity and recent arguments attacking the viability or desirability of 'value free' science. Section 3 outlines Longino's influential 'social' account of objectivity, suggesting some worries about drawing too strong a link between epistemic and ethical virtues. Section 4 turns to the value of objectivity, exploring concerns that notions of objectivity are politically problematic, and cautiously advocating in response a view of objectivity in terms of invariance.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009063647Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 10 June 2021
References
Alexandrova, A. (2017) A Philosophy for the Science of Well Being. New York, NY: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E. (2004) ‘Uses of value judgments in science: A general argument, with lessons from a case study of feminist research on divorce’. Hypatia, 19(1), 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badano, G., John, S., & Junghans, T. (2017) ‘NICE’s Cost-Effectiveness Threshold’ in McClimans, L. (ed) Measurement in Medicine: Philosophical Essays on Assessment and Evaluation. London: Rowman and LittlefieldGoogle Scholar
Bertolaso, M., & Sterpetti, F. (2019) ‘Evidence amalgamation, plausibility, and cancer research’. Synthese, 196(8), 3279–3317Google Scholar
Betz, G. (2013) ‘In defence of the value free ideal’. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 3(2), 207–220Google Scholar
Biddle, J. B., & Leuschner, A. (2015) ‘Climate skepticism and the manufacture of doubt: can dissent in science be epistemically detrimental?’ European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5(3), 261–278Google Scholar
Biddle, J. B., & Kukla, R. (2017) ‘The geography of epistemic risk’ in Elliott, K., ed. Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 215–238Google Scholar
Bird, A. (2019) ‘Systematicity, knowledge, and bias. How systematicity made clinical medicine a science’. Synthese, 196(3), 863–879Google Scholar
Bolinska, A. (2013) ‘Epistemic representation, informativeness and the aim of faithful representation’. Synthese, 190(2), 219–234Google Scholar
Borgerson, K. (2011) ‘Amending and defending critical contextual empiricism’. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 1(3), 435Google Scholar
Bowcott, O. (2019) ‘Judge rules against researcher who lost job over transgender tweets’. The Guardian 18 Dec 2019 www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/18/judge-rules-against-charity-worker-who-lost-job-over-transgender-tweetsGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. J. (2019) ‘Is science really value free and objective?’ in McKain, K. and Kampouaris, K. (eds) What is Scientific Knowledge?: An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. London: RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchman, C. (1948) ‘Statistics, Pragmatics, Induction’. Philosophy of Science, 15, 249–268Google Scholar
Culp, S. (1995). ‘Objectivity in experimental inquiry: breaking data-technique circles’. Philosophy of Science, 62(3), 438–458Google Scholar
Douglas, H. (2000) ‘Inductive risk and values in science’. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 559–579Google Scholar
Douglas, H. (2004) ‘The irreducible complexity of objectivity’. Synthese, 138(3), 453–473Google Scholar
Douglas, H. (2009) Science, Policy and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh PressGoogle Scholar
Fine, A.I. (1984) ‘The Natural Ontological Attitude’, in Leplin, J., (ed.), Scientific Realism. University of California Press, pp. 261–277.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1998) ‘The viewpoint of no-one in particular’. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 72(2),7–20Google Scholar
Gaukroger, S. (2012) Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (Eds). (2002). Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (2001) ‘Experts: Which ones should you trust?’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1), 85–110.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (2002) ‘Knowledge and social norms. Review of the fate of knowledge, by H. Longino’. Science 296, 2148–2149Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (2015) ‘Let’s not talk about objectivity’ in Padovani, F., Eichardson, H & Tsou, Y. (eds) Objectivity in Science. Cham:SpringerGoogle Scholar
Harding, S. (1991) Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca: Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar
Hicks, D. (2011) ‘Is Longino’s conception of objectivity feminist?’ Hypatia, 26(2), 333–351Google Scholar
Holman, B., & Geislar, S. (2018) ‘Sex drugs and corporate ventriloquism: how to evaluate science policies intended to manage industry-funded bias’. Philosophy of Science, 85(5), 869–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, K. (2011) ‘Diversity and dissent in science: Does democracy always serve feminist aims?’ in Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 111–132Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (1998) ‘Principles governing IPCC work’. <https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf>>Google Scholar
Irzik, G., & Kurtulmus, F. (2019) ‘What is epistemic public trust in science?’ The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 70(4), 1145–1166Google Scholar
Janack, M. (2002) ‘Dilemmas of objectivity’. Social Epistemology, 16(3), 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, Richard (1956) ‘Valuation and acceptance of scientific hypotheses’. Philosophy of Science, 23(3), 237–246Google Scholar
John, S. (2015) ‘The example of the IPCC does not vindicate the Value Free Ideal: a reply to Gregor Betz’. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5(1), 1–13Google Scholar
John, S. (2018) ‘Epistemic trust and the ethics of science communication: Against transparency, openness, sincerity and honesty’. Social Epistemology, 32(2), 75–87Google Scholar
John, S. (2019) ‘Science, truth and dictatorship: Wishful thinking or wishful speaking?’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 78, 64–72.Google Scholar
Jukola, S. (2015) ‘Meta-analysis, ideals of objectivity, and the reliability of medical knowledge’. Science & Technology StudiesGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, I. (2018) ‘Defending a risk account of scientific objectivity’. The British Journal for the Philosophy of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1977) ‘Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice’ in Kuhn, T.S., (ed), The Essential Tension – Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
Kukla, R. (2012) ‘“Author TBD”: Radical collaboration in contemporary biomedical research’ Philosophy of Science, 79(5), 845–858Google Scholar
Kuo, L. (2019) ‘China’s leaders seeking to ‘draw strength from weakness’ in 2020’. The Guardian 28 Dec 2019 www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/28/chinas-leaders-seeking-to-draw-strength-from-weakness-in-2020Google Scholar
Levi, I. (1960) ‘Must the scientist make value judgments?’ Journal of Philosophy, 57, 345–357Google Scholar
Lewens, T. (2016) The Meaning of Science: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. London: Hachette UKGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, E.A. (1995) ‘Objectivity and the double standard for feminist epistemologies’. Synthese, 104(3), 351–381Google Scholar
Lloyd, E.A. (1998) The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, E.A. (2005) The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. (1990) Science as Social Knowledge Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. (1996) ‘Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy’, in Nelson L.H. and Nelson J. (eds) Feminism, Science and the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 39–58Google Scholar
Ludwig, D. (2015) ‘Ontological Choices and the Value-Free Ideal’. Erkenntnis, 81(6), 1–20.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. (1982) ‘Values in science’. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 3–28Google Scholar
Megill, A. (1994) ‘Introduction: Four Senses of Objectivity’ in Megill, A. (ed) Rethinking Objectivity. Durham: Duke.Google Scholar
Menzies, P., & Price, H. (1993) ‘Causation as a secondary quality’. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 44(2), 187–203Google Scholar
Peters, U. (2020) ‘Illegitimate Values, Confirmation Bias, and Mandevillian Cognition in Science’. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1093/bjps/axy079Google Scholar
Planck, M.K. (1950) Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers. New York: Philosophical LibraryGoogle Scholar
Proctor, R.N. (2001) ‘Commentary: Schairer and Schöniger’s forgotten tobacco epidemiology and the Nazi quest for racial purity’. International Journal of Epidemiology, 30(1), 31–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Railton, P. (1984, January) ‘Marx and the Objectivity of Science’. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 813–826Google Scholar
Reiss, J. and Sprenger, J. (2017) ‘Scientific objectivity’ in Zalta E.N. (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/scientific-objectivity/Google Scholar
Rudner, R. (1953) ‘The scientist qua scientist makes value judgments’. Philosophy of Science, 20(1), 1–6Google Scholar
Schickore, J. (2008) ‘Doing science, writing science’. Philosophy of Science, 75(3), 323–343Google Scholar
Schroeder, S.A. (2017) ‘Using democratic values in science: an objection and (partial) response’. Philosophy of Science, 84(5), 1044–1054Google Scholar
Seaman, A. (2019) ‘We need a grown-up debate about climate change’. Spiked Online 29 April 2019, www.spiked-online.com/2019/04/29/we-need-a-grown-up-debate-about-climate-change/Google Scholar
Steel, D. (2010) ‘Epistemic values and the argument from inductive risk’. Philosophy of Science, 77(1), 14–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegenga, J. (2011) ‘Is meta-analysis the platinum standard?’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 42(2011), 497–507CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steele, K. (2012) ‘The scientist qua policy advisor makes value judgments’. Philosophy of Science, 79(5), 893–904Google Scholar
Wilholt, T. (2009) ‘Bias and values in scientific research’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 40(1), 92–101Google Scholar
Wilholt, T. (2012) ‘Epistemic trust in science’. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 64, 233–253Google Scholar
Wright, J. (2018) ‘Rescuing objectivity: A Contextualist proposal’. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 48(4), 385–406Google Scholar
Wylie, A. (2003) ‘Why Standpoint Matters’, in Figueroa, R. and Harding, S. (eds), Science and Other Cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology. New York, NY and London: Routledge, pp. 26–48Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (1996) ‘May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert–lay knowledge divide’ in Lash, S., Szerszynski, B. & Wynne, B. (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London: SAGEGoogle Scholar
Wray, K.B. (1999) ‘A defense of Longino’s social epistemology’. Philosophy of Science, 66, S538–S552.Google Scholar
Zammito, J. (2004) A nice derangement of epistemes Chicago, IL:University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
- 18
- Cited by