DOCSLIB.ORG

The Epistemic Significance of Values in Science

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Epistemic Significance of Values in Science University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2014-01-29 The Epistemic Significance of Values in Science Holter, Brandon Holter, B. (2014). The Epistemic Significance of Values in Science (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/28132 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/1317 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY The Epistemic Significance of Values in Science by Brandon Holter A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY CALGARY, ALBERTA JANURARY, 2014 © Brandon Holter 2014 Abstract The proper role of values in science has been a hotly debated topic for many decades now. The traditional view of epistemic justification holds that scientific objectivity requires suppression of value judgments; theories are only justified by an impartial analysis of the evidence (Haack 1998; Pinnick, Koertge, and Almedar 2003). Traditionalists worry that values bias scientists, leading them to believe what they would like to be true regardless of the evidence. Proponents of value-laden science argue that the justification of scientific theories cannot be isolated from moral and practical judgments (Kuhn 1962; Longino 2002a). The arguments they advance purport to show that values are not merely biases, values can play a positive role in justifying beliefs. Underdetermination arguments claim that evidence alone cannot determine theory choice (Laudan 1990; Longino 1979; Quine 1951).These arguments do not motivate an epistemic role for values in science, however, because values may influence scientists' theoretical beliefs without justifying those beliefs. As a result, philosophers have advanced a number of new arguments for the epistemic necessity of values judgments. This dissertation examines several of these arguments with an eye toward their deficiencies in order to develop an account of values in scientific reasoning that does not legitimate bias or delusion, as the traditionalists fear. Drawing on both old and new arguments, I argue that values help determine when a theory is sufficiently justified by the evidence (Douglas 2000; Kitcher 2011a; Rudner 1953). While evidence alone provides justifying reasons for belief, scientists must decide how much evidence is needed to justify scientific claims. Different scientific inquiries require different epistemic standards and, I argue, traditional value-free epistemologies cannot account for this variation. Philosophers cannot explain why scientists in different contexts adopt different epistemic standards without appealing to value judgments. On the view I adopt, the evidence justifies a claim when we have good reasons to believe we can act on that claim; a theory is sufficiently justified in the epistemic sense when it is sufficiently justified for practical purposes. Allowing values to guide these decisions, I argue, does not allow values to displace rigorous attention to the evidence. ii Table of Contents Abstract..........................................................................................................................................ii Table of Contents...........................................................................................................................iii Introduction...................................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1: Epistemic Holism and Relativism.......................................................................... 11 1.1 Three Problems for Holism.........................................................................................16 1.1.1 The Motivational Problem............................................................................16 1.1.2 Evidential Ignorance and Underdetermination.............................................19 1.1.3 Equal Legitimacy of Values..........................................................................25 1.2 Diversity and Equal Legitimacy...................................................................................29 1.2.1 Social Epistemology......................................................................................29 1.2.2 Longino's Social Epistemology.....................................................................35 1.2.3 From Subjective to Social Relativism: Equal Legitimacy Revisited............41 1.3 Conclusion...................................................................................................................45 Chapter 2: Introducing Goal-Oriented Epistemology.............................................................48 2.1 Kitcher's Epistemic Holism.........................................................................................54 2.1.1 Scientific Significance in Science, Truth, and Democracy..........................54 2.1.2 Kitcher's Goal-Oriented Epistemology.........................................................62 2.2 Goal-Oriented Epistemology and Relativism..............................................................69 2.2.1 Significance and Evidence............................................................................69 2.2.2 Relativism and Equal Legitimacy.................................................................76 2.2.3 Social Epistemology, Equal Legitimacy, and Evidence...............................83 iii 2.3 Conclusion..................................................................................................................92 Chapter 3: Motivating Goal-Oriented Epistemology...............................................................95 3.1 A Question of Sufficiency..........................................................................................102 3.2 The Variation of Epistemic Standards........................................................................108 3.3 Suspension of Belief...................................................................................................113 3.4 Strategic Acceptance and Epistemic Justification......................................................118 3.5 The Limited Availability of evidence.........................................................................127 3.6 Conclusion.................................................................................................................133 Chapter 4: Getting to Know Microbial Species......................................................................136 4.1 Identifying Microbial Species....................................................................................140 4.2 Microbial Species and Lateral Gene Transfer (LGT)................................................146 4.3 Explaining the Sufficiency of Genetic Evidence for Classification...........................154 4.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................................159 Chapter 5: Pluralism, Objectivity, and Values........................................................................162 5.1 Constructivism and Realism......................................................................................169 5.2 Ontological Pluralism and Values..............................................................................172 5.3 Mapping a Complex World: Theoretical Pluralism and Values.................................176 5.4 Carving Nature's Useful Joints: Epistemic Pluralism and Values..............................183 5.5 Conclusion.................................................................................................................191 Bibliography.................................................................................................................................205 iv Introduction It is relatively uncontroversial that values – our aspirations for ourselves, others, and the world in general – influence science. Almost nothing is entirely uncontroversial in philosophy but philosophers of science have generally come to accept that it is impossible to isolate science's systematic attempt to understand the world around us from moral and practical judgments. The history of brutal experimentation on captive victims of the Nazi regime, for example, teaches us the importance of moral values in thinking about what kind of scientific research is permissible. Research methodologies are also constrained by the limited availability of time, helpful collaborators, funding, and technology. Scientific practice, like any other practice with implications for others, must be informed by moral and practical considerations. Philosophers disagree, however, about the epistemic status of moral and practical judgments in science. Values, many argue, should be relegated to the practical sphere of reasoning about how to act and kept out of epistemic judgments about what to believe. On one side of the debate are what I will call 'epistemic holists', those who believe that values inform epistemic assessments of the justification of scientific claims1. Because
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Philosophy in Biology and Medicine: Biological Individuality and Fetal Parthood, Part I
    Oslo, Norway July 7–12, 2019 ISHP SS B BOOK OF ABSTRACTS 2 Index 11 Keynote lectures 17 Diverse format sessions 47 Traditional sessions 367 Individual papers 637 Mixed media and poster presentations A Aaby, Bendik Hellem, 369 Barbosa, Thiago Pinto, 82 Abbott, Jessica, 298 Barker, Matthew, 149 Abir-Am, Pnina Geraldine, 370 Barragán, Carlos Andrés, 391 D’Abramo, Flavio, 371 Battran, Martin, 158 Abrams, Marshall, 372 Bausman, William, 129, 135 Acerbi, Alberto, 156 Baxter, Janella, 56, 57 Ackert, Lloyd, 185 Bayir, Saliha, 536 Agiriano, Arantza Etxeberria, 374 Beasley, Charles, 392 Ahn, Soohyun, 148 Bechtel, William, 259 El Aichouchi, Adil, 375 Bedau, Mark, 393 Airoldi, Giorgio, 376 Ben-Shachar, Erela Teharlev, 395 Allchin, Douglas, 377 Beneduce, Chiara, 396 Allen, Gar, 328 Berry, Dominic, 56, 58 Almeida, Maria Strecht, 377 Bertoldi, Nicola, 397 Amann, Bernd, 40 Betzler, Riana, 398 Andersen, Holly, 19, 20 Bich, Leonardo, 41 Anderson, Gemma, 28 LeBihan, Soazig, 358 Angleraux, Caroline, 378 Birch, Jonathan, 22 Ankeny, Rachel A., 225 Bix, Amy Sue, 399 Anker, Peder, 230 Blais, Cédric, 401 Ardura, Adrian Cerda, 380 Blancke, Stefaan, 609 Armstrong-Ingram, Tiernan, 381 Blell, Mwenza, 488 Arnet, Evan, 383 Blute, Marion, 59, 62 Artiga, Marc, 383 Bognon-Küss, Cécilia, 23 Atanasova, Nina, 20, 21 Bokulich, Alisa, 616 Au, Yin Chung, 384 Bollhagen, Andrew, 402 DesAutels, Lane, 386 Bondarenko, Olesya, 403 Aylward, Alex, 109 Bonilla, Jorge Armando Romo, 404 B Baccelliere, Gabriel Vallejos, 387 Bonnin, Thomas, 405 Baedke, Jan, 49, 50 Boon, Mieke, 235 Baetu,
    [Show full text]
  • Robert Klee and the Latest Face of Scientific Realism P. Kyle Stanford
    Pergamon Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci., Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 367–375, 1999 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0039-3681/99 $ - see front matter Essay Review Preaching to the Choir? Robert Klee and the Latest Face of Scientific Realism P. Kyle Stanford* Robert Klee, Introduction to the Philosophy of Science: Cutting Nature at its Seams (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), xi ϩ 258 pp., ISBN 0- 19-5106113, paperback. Perhaps the most important point to make about Robert Klee’s recent Introduc- tion to the Philosophy of Science: Cutting Nature at its Seams is that we need many more books like it: it is an engaging, accessible and comprehensive introduc- tory text in the philosophy of science which manages to avoid sailing over the head of the beginner philosophy student without talking down to the working pro- fessional. I suspect that many teachers of the philosophy of science will, along with their students, find something in this book to stimulate their own thinking about the subject. Despite its many strengths, however, the book’s central strategy of argument is, as we shall see, compromised by a fundamental weakness. One particularly impressive feature of the text is its effective use of immunology as a case study. Klee’s first chapter presents the basics of immunological science, and it serves him well as a constant source of illustration throughout the text. As Klee notes, this pedagogical strategy avoids the traditional exclusive focus on the (sometimes idiosyncratic) features of physics. Far more importantly, however, it avoids the classic philosopher’s mistake of testing accounts of science against a high-school textbook reconstruction of scientific activity, rather than the sophisticated, complex, richly detailed and messy business in which real science consists.
    [Show full text]
  • Objectivity in the Feminist Philosophy of Science
    OBJECTIVITY IN THE FEMINIST PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requisites for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Karen Cordrick Haely, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2003 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Louise M. Antony, Adviser Professor Donald C. Hubin _______________________ Professor George Pappas Adviser Philosophy Graduate Program ABSTRACT According to a familiar though naïve conception, science is a rigorously neutral enterprise, free from social and cultural influence, but more sophisticated philosophical views about science have revealed that cultural and personal interests and values are ubiquitous in scientific practice, and thus ought not be ignored when attempting to understand, describe and prescribe proper behavior for the practice of science. Indeed, many theorists have argued that cultural and personal interests and values must be present in science (and knowledge gathering in general) in order to make sense of the world. The concept of objectivity has been utilized in the philosophy of science (as well as in epistemology) as a way to discuss and explore the various types of social and cultural influence that operate in science. The concept has also served as the focus of debates about just how much neutrality we can or should expect in science. This thesis examines feminist ideas regarding how to revise and enrich the concept of objectivity, and how these suggestions help achieve both feminist and scientific goals. Feminists offer us warnings about “idealized” concepts of objectivity, and suggest that power can play a crucial role in determining which research programs get labeled “objective”.
    [Show full text]
  • Fehr, “What Is in It for Me? the Benefits of Diversity in Scientific
    Chapter 7 What Is in It for Me? The Benefits of Diversity in Scientific Communities Carla Fehr Abstract I investigate the reciprocal relationship between social accounts of knowledge production and efforts to increase the representation of women and some minorities in the academy. In particular, I consider the extent to which femi- nist social epistemologies such as Helen Longino’s critical contextual empiricism can be employed to argue that it is in researchers’ epistemic interest to take active steps to increase gender diversity. As it stands, critical contextual empiricism does not provide enough resources to succeed at this task. However, considering this view through an employment equity lens highlights areas where such theories need to be further developed. I argue that views such as Longino’s ought to attend to nuances of community structure and cultural features that inhibit critical social interactions, if we are to maximize the epistemic as well as the ethical improvements associated with a social approach to knowing. These developments advance these epistemic theories for their own sake. They also help develop these theories into a tool that can be used by those calling for increased diversity in the academy. Keywords Feminist philosophy of science • Social epistemology • Implicit bias • Employment equity • Workplace environment issues 7.1 What Is in It for Me? A while ago I gave a lecture to science faculty members and university administrators regarding the underrepresentation of women and minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields.1 After my talk, an administrator, with 1 In this paper I am primarily focusing on gender diversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward an Engaged Account of Objectivity: Contributions from Early Phenomenology
    Toward an Engaged Account of Objectivity: Contributions from Early Phenomenology Author: Amanda Gibeault Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/730 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2009 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. ! ∀# ∃%∃&∋ ∃! ∃∀( )&∗ ( ) & + ( ∃ !) + , −../ 0 +( ∃ !) −../ ! ∀# ∃%∃&∋ ∃! ∃∀( )&∗ ( ) & + ∃ 1∃2 +321 45 6∃ 45 +1 ++ 72 1 18 +426∃ 8 6∀1∃ 54 2+326∃ 72+321 45 61∃ 1 +326 5 5 + 2+ 9215 5+ +326 1∃ 2 ∗) :815 +32 ,6∗ 1+, 2 6∃2 54 ;15 ∃∗ 6∀1∃+ +81 22251 +326 251 ,+325 2214 281+121 ,6∃ 1∃ + 5 +326 ! ∀ #∃ % ∀ &∋( ) ∗ ∀ %+ ∀ %, %∀ % ∃ %− +∀ + +% ,∀ . +, /∀ 0 +− ∀ 1 23 +4 %∀ . 5 . 6 +! +∀ ∃ 7 8 8 9 ,: ,∀ 3 3; , −∀ 3 6 < 3 ,% /∀ / ,+ ∀ & 3 ,+ %∀ 6∋ . ,∗ +∀ = ∃ >1 2 −% 3 ∀ ( ∃ −, ∀ −∗ ,∀ / −! /∀ 4% % 3 4, ∀ 6 & 4∗ ∀ ? 4∗ %∀ 6 4≅ +∀ 0 . ∗: ,∀ 6∃ 3 6 ∗ ∀ 1 ? 0 & ∗, ∀ ? !− /∀ 7 <∃ 8> 8& ≅, /∀ :+ + ; 3 :4 ∀ ; 3 0 :∗ ∀ Α . ∃ . :! ∋ %∀ 76;1 81 8 % 1 ∀ ; 3 − ∀ ∋ 8∃85 − %∀ 7 5 ∃ ∗ +∀ ; 3 %∗ ,∀ +: ∀ 1 6 +− ∀ 6 +4 %∀ 6 ,: +∀ =3 , ,∀ 6 ; 3 ,% /∀ ,4 ,∃?(6 −: ∀ 6 6 −% ∀ 4: ∀ ∗: ∀ ∗: %∀ ∗− /∀ = ∗≅ ∀ = ∗≅ %∀ = ! +∀ & = !− /∀ 3) 3 !! ∀ 6 ≅% /∀ 6 ≅, /∀ ≅∗ − 6 ≅! ∀ 0 %: ∀ .∃ %:− ∀ %:− %∀ % +∀ = 6∃ %+ ,∀ 66 %≅
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophical Adventures
    Philosophical Adventures Elisabeth A. Lloyd INDIANA UNIVERSITY John Dewey lecture delivered at the one hundred tenth annual Central Division meeting of the American Philosophical Association in New Orleans, Louisiana, on February 21, 2013. I had the lovely opportunity of being introduced by Alison Wylie, to whom I owe a large thank you, and thank you especially to Anne Jacobson, and the whole program committee, for this chance to share a bit of my life and career with you. This invitation charged that I was to give an “autobiographical sort” of talk. Specifically, it required the speaker to provide “an intellectual autobiography, with perhaps some account of the way in which [she] was shaped by or shaped the profession, how the profession seems to have changed over the years, etc. The lecturer might reflect on the people and issues that led [her] into philosophy and provide a personal perspective on the state of the field today.” I tried to stick pretty closely to this mandate. Over the course of my career, which is now—although I find this astounding—over thirty years long, I have had the great pleasure of seeing my primary field of research grow and establish itself as a serious field of thought and activity in philosophy. When I was in graduate school at Princeton in the early 1980s, I was told, and I quote, “there is no such thing as Philosophy of Biology. You can’t write a dissertation on that.” And John Beatty wrote that same year: “In the world of academic specialties and subspecialties, philosophy of biology certainly counts as a self-respecting, if not otherwise respected, field of study.”1 It is impossible to imagine anyone saying that now! Five years later, I was also told that feminist philosophy of science was hopeless, that there were no good cases of male bias in science worth discussing, and that since science was self- correcting, those sorts of bias couldn’t have any long-term significance.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Aspects of Scientific Knowledge
    1 Social Aspects of Scientific Knowledge Ilkka Niiniluoto ABSTRACT. From its inception in 1987 social epistemology has been divided into analytic (ASE) and critical (CSE) approaches, represented by Alvin I. Goldman and Steve Fuller, respectively. In this paper, the agendas and some basic ideas of ASE and CSE are compared and assessed by bringing into the discussion also other participants of the debates on the social aspects of scientific knowledge – among them Raimo Tuomela, Philip Kitcher and Helen Longino. The six topics to be analyzed include individual and collective epistemic agents; the notion of scientific community; realism and constructivism; truth-seeking communities; epistemic and social values; science, experts, and democracy. KEYWORDS. democracy, epistemic values, experts, scientific community, scientific realism, social epistemology, truth-seeking, Introduction: Analytic and Critical Social Epistemology Social epistemology studies knowledge from a social point of view. As a complement to empirical studies, such as the sociology of knowledge and the sociology of science, social epistemology aims to provide a normative philosophical account of knowledge as a collective achievement. Even though the term dates from the 1950s, the work in this field started in 1987 with a special issue of Synthese, edited by Frederick Schmitt, and the new journal Social Epistemology – A Journal of Knowledge, Culture, and Policy, founded by Steve Fuller. In the next year Fuller published a monograph with the title Social Epistemology. Alvin I. Goldman, who published in the 1987 Synthese issue an article on “Social Epistemics”, developed his reliabilist epistemology in the direction of social practices in his Knowledge in a Social World (1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Austin & Hempel Lectures 1991-1995
    Austin & Hempel Lectures 1991-1995 Dr. Hilary Putnam, Cogan University Professor, Harvard University October 20, 1995: “Wittgenstein & Philosophy of Mathematics” October 19, 1995: “The Importance of Nonscientific Knowledge” Dr. James Tully, McGill University March 23, 1995: "The Quebec Referendum and the Future of Canada" (In cooperation with the Political Science Department at Dalhousie University) March 24, 1995: "Problems of Cultural Recognition" (In cooperation with the Political Science Department at Dalhousie University) Dr. Sandra Harding, Delaware University and UCLA October 6, 1994: "Is Western Science and Ethno-Science? Feminist and Post-colonial Issues" (In cooperation with the Women's Studies Programme of Dalhousie University) October 7, 1994: "Strong Objectivity: After the Neutrality Ideal" (In cooperation with the Women's Studies Programme of Dalhousie University) Dr. Daniel Dennett, Tufts University September 29, 1994: "Some Confusions about Evolution" September 30, 1994: "Consciousness of Time - and Time of Consciousness" Dr. Naomi Scheman, University of Minnesota February 10, 1994: "On Waking Up One Morning and Discovering We Are Them" (In cooperation with the Women's Studies Programme at Dalhousie University) February 11, 1994: "Closets, margins, and Forms of Life" (In cooperation with the Women's Studies Programme at Dalhousie University" Dr. Barbra Partee, University of Massachusetts Amherst November 4, 1993: "Quantification in Natural Languages and Some Questions for Semantic Typology" November 5, 1993: "Generalized context-Dependence in Quantified Structures" Dr. Paul Horwich, MIT October 14, 1993: "Is Time Travel Possible" October 15, 1993: "What is it Like to be a Deflationary Theory of Meaning?" Dr. Ian Hacking, University of Toronto September 30, 1993: "Memoro-Politics: Trauma and the Soul" (In cooperation with the Political Science Department at Dalhousie University) October 1, 1993: "Reasoning and Realism" (In cooperation with the Political Science Department at Dalhousie University) Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oberlin Colloquium in Philosophy: Program History
    The Oberlin Colloquium in Philosophy: Program History 1960 FIRST COLLOQUIUM Wilfrid Sellars, "On Looking at Something and Seeing it" Ronald Hepburn, "God and Ambiguity" Comments: Dennis O'Brien Kurt Baier, "Itching and Scratching" Comments: David Falk/Bruce Aune Annette Baier, "Motives" Comments: Jerome Schneewind 1961 SECOND COLLOQUIUM W.D. Falk, "Hegel, Hare and the Existential Malady" Richard Cartwright, "Propositions" Comments: Ruth Barcan Marcus D.A.T. Casking, "Avowals" Comments: Martin Lean Zeno Vendler, "Consequences, Effects and Results" Comments: William Dray/Sylvan Bromberger PUBLISHED: Analytical Philosophy, First Series, R.J. Butler (ed.), Oxford, Blackwell's, 1962. 1962 THIRD COLLOQUIUM C.J. Warnock, "Truth" Arthur Prior, "Some Exercises in Epistemic Logic" Newton Garver, "Criteria" Comments: Carl Ginet/Paul Ziff Hector-Neri Castenada, "The Private Language Argument" Comments: Vere Chappell/James Thomson John Searle, "Meaning and Speech Acts" Comments: Paul Benacerraf/Zeno Vendler PUBLISHED: Knowledge and Experience, C.D. Rollins (ed.), University of Pittsburgh Press, 1964. 1963 FOURTH COLLOQUIUM Michael Scriven, "Insanity" Frederick Will, "The Preferability of Probable Beliefs" Norman Malcolm, "Criteria" Comments: Peter Geach/George Pitcher Terrence Penelhum, "Pleasure and Falsity" Comments: William Kennick/Arnold Isenberg 1964 FIFTH COLLOQUIUM Stephen Korner, "Some Remarks on Deductivism" J.J.C. Smart, "Nonsense" Joel Feinberg, "Causing Voluntary Actions" Comments: Keith Donnellan/Keith Lehrer Nicholas Rescher, "Evaluative Metaphysics" Comments: Lewis W. Beck/Thomas E. Patton Herbert Hochberg, "Qualities" Comments: Richard Severens/J.M. Shorter PUBLISHED: Metaphysics and Explanation, W.H. Capitan and D.D. Merrill (eds.), University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966. 1965 SIXTH COLLOQUIUM Patrick Nowell-Smith, "Acts and Locutions" George Nakhnikian, "St. Anselm's Four Ontological Arguments" Hilary Putnam, "Psychological Predicates" Comments: Bruce Aune/U.T.
    [Show full text]
  • Objectivity and the Values and Science Debate Sean Boivin A
    The Likelihood Principle: Objectivity and the Values and Science Debate Sean Boivin A Major Research Paper in the Department of Philosophy Under the supervision of Dr. Matthew J. Barker Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts (Philosophy) at Concordia University Montreal, Quebec, Canada February 2018 © Sean Boivin ABSTRACT The Likelihood Principle: Objectivity and the Values and Science Debate Sean Boivin This paper focuses on the debate of underdetermination in science, and asks the descriptive question: is objectivity possible in science? I introduce the problem of underdetermination in science and articulate a related argument presented by philosopher Helen Longino against the possibility for objectivity (traditionally understood) in science. In opposition to Longino, I aim to salvage the possibility of important objectivity. I begin from Likelihoodism – a normative view about the form that evidential reasoning should take. After presenting different defenses of that view, I show how it implies a descriptive claim – the Likelihood Principle – that opposes Longino’s cynicism about the descriptive possibility of objectivity in science. The Likelihood Principle compares the likelihoods of two hypotheses in relation to a body of evidence and says which hypothesis (if any) is consequently favored. I argue that “favours” be interpreted as “objectively favours”, implying it is possible for some evidence to objectively favour one hypothesis over another without appeal to values. In addition to arguing that we should then infer a descriptive objectivism from this, I interpret a case-study using the Likelihood Principle to illustrate how applications of it can be objective. I discuss what follows for the debate in the values and science literature, including what follows with respect to Longino’s views.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    CURRICULUM VITAE Philip Stuart Kitcher February 2018 Date of Birth: February 20 1947 Place of Birth: London, England Citizenship: British by origin, naturalized American citizen (May 1995). Home address: 454 Riverside Drive, Apt. 6B, New York, NY 10027 Home phone: (212)-662-5812 Office phone: (212)-854-4884, (212)-854-3196 (department) E-mail: [email protected] Higher Education Christ's College, Cambridge; 1966-1969, B.A. 1969, (M.A. 1996). (First class honours in Mathematics/History and Philosophy of Science) Princeton University; 1969-1973; Ph.D. 1974 (Department of Philosophy/Program in History and Philosophy of Science) Honorary Degree Doctor, honoris causa Erasmus University Rotterdam November 2013 (on the occasion of the University centennial; awarded for “outstanding contributions to philosophy of science”) Honors and Awards Henry Schuman Prize (awarded by the History of Science Society, for the best essay by a graduate student), 1971 University of Vermont Summer Research Grant, 1975 University of Vermont Summer Research Grant, 1979 NEH Summer Research Grant, 1979 ACLS Study Fellowship, 1981-82 University of Vermont Distinguished Scholar in Humanities and Social Sciences, 1983 NEH Fellowship for College Teachers, 1983-84 NEH Grant for Institute to Investigate a Possible New Consensus in Philosophy of Science (Joint Principal Investigator with C. Wade Savage) 1 Imre Lakatos Award (co-winner with Michael Friedman) 1986. Awarded for Vaulting Ambition. NEH Fellowship for University Teachers 1988-89 (declined) John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship 1988-89 Principal Investigator, five-year NSF Research and Training Grant for the development of a Science Studies Center at UCSD. (Awarded Fall 1990). Revelle College (UCSD) Distinguished Teaching Award, 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • Feminist Epistemology As a Local Epistemology Author(S): Helen E
    Feminist Epistemology as a Local Epistemology Author(s): Helen E. Longino and Kathleen Lennon Source: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, Vol. 71 (1997), pp. 19 -35+37-54 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Aristotelian Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4106954 Accessed: 26/04/2010 19:08 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The Aristotelian Society and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes.
    [Show full text]