Elliott, Kevin (2011) Direct and Indirect Roles for Values in Science. [Preprint]
| Microsoft Word (.doc) Download (107Kb) |
Abstract
Although many philosophers have employed the distinction between “direct” and “indirect” roles for values in science, I argue that it merits further clarification. The distinction can be formulated in several ways: as a logical point, as a distinction between epistemic attitudes, or as a clarification of different consequences associated with accepting scientific claims. Moreover, it can serve either as part of a normative ideal or as a tool for policing how values influence science. While various formulations of the distinction may (with further clarification) contribute to a normative ideal, they have limited effectiveness for regulating how values influence science.
| Export/Citation: | EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL |
| Social Networking: |
| Item Type: | Preprint |
|---|---|
| Keywords: | inductive risk; epistemic attitudes; standards of evidence; indirect role for values; value free ideal |
| Subjects: | General Issues > Science and Society General Issues > Values In Science General Issues > Science Policy |
| Depositing User: | Kevin Elliott |
| Date Deposited: | 27 Aug 2010 |
| Last Modified: | 07 Oct 2010 11:20 |
| Item ID: | 5522 |
| URI: | http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/5522 |
Actions (login required)
| View Item |


