Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Synthese Library ((SYLI,volume 236))

  • 194 Accesses

Abstract

The paper address two issues. The first involves the determination of the conditions under which an individual will honestly or dishonestly acquire and reveal scientific information. The second involves the determination of the conditions under which an individual will publicly reveal an instance of scientific dishonesty. In addressing both issues I examine the rational and ethical components of professional scientific behavior. I shall refer to the honest conduct of research and the truthful publication of scientific findings as epistemic honesty, and to the public revelation of epistemic dishonesty as whistle-blowing. Then the two issues I will address can be stated as questions, as follows: Why is a scientist epistemically honest? Why does an individual blow the whistle?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Balch, M. and Fishbum, P. C.: 1973, ‘Subjective Expected Utility for Conditional Primitives’, in Balch, M., D. McFadden, and S. Wu (eds.), Essays on Economic Behavior Under Uncertainty, North-Holland, pp. 57–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battalio, R. C., Kagel, J. H., and Jiranyakul, K.: 1990, ‘Testing Between Alternative Models of Choice Under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 3, 25–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battalio, R. C., Kagel, J. H., and MacDonald, D. N.: 1985, ‘Animals’ Choices Over Uncertain Outcomes: Some Initial Experimental Results’, American Economic Review 75, 597–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G.: 1968, ‘Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach’, Journal of Political Economy 78, 169–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blais, M.: 1990, ‘Misunderstandings of Epistemic TIT FOR TAT: Reply to John Woods’, Journal of Philosophy 87, 369–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biais, M.: 1987, “Epistemic TIT FOR TAT’, Journal of Philosophy 84, 363–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, M. K. and Heineke, J. M.: 1975, ‘A Labor Theoretic Analysis of the Criminal Choice’, American Economic Review 65, 314–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. F.: 1989, ‘An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 61–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castafieda, H.: 1981, ‘The Paradoxes of Deontic Logic: The Simplest Solution to All of Them in One Fell Swoop’, in R. Hilpinen (ed.), New Studies in Deontic Logic, Reidel, pp. 37–86.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm, R. M.: 1963, ‘Contrary-to-Duty Imperatives and Deontic Logic’, Analysis 24, 33–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dacey, R.: 1981, ‘An Interrogative Account of the Dialectical Inquiring System Based Upon the Economic Theory of Information’, Synthese 47, 43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, I.: 1973, ‘Participation in Illegitimate Activities: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation’, Journal of Political Economy 81, 521–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, I. and Becker, G.: 1972, ‘Market Insurance, Self-Insurance, and Self-Protection’, Journal of Political Economy 80, 623–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. and Kochenberger, G.: 1979, ‘Two-Piece von Neumann-Morgenstern Utility Functions’, Decision Sciences 10, 503–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fçllesdal, D. and Hilpinen, R.: 1971, ‘Deontic Logic: An Introduction’, in R. Hilpinen (ed.), Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, Reidel, pp. 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. and Savage, L. J.: 1948, ‘The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk’, Journal of Political Economy 56, 279–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glazer, M. P. and Glazer, P. M.: 1989, The Whistleblowers,Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardwig, J.: 1991, ‘The Role of Trust in Knowledge’, Journal of Philosophy 88, 693–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardwig, J.: 1985, ‘Epistemic Dependence’, Journal of Philosophy 82, 335–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilts, P. J.: 1991, ‘Hero in Exposing Science Hoax Paid Dearly’, New York Times, March 22, pp. Al, A13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, J.: 1971, ‘Some Main Problems of Deontic Logic’, in R. Hilpinen (ed.), Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, Reidel, pp. 59–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, R. C.: 1983, The Logic of Decision,second edition, University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagel, J. H., MacDonald, D. N., and Battalio, R. C.: 1990, ‘Tests of ’Fanning Out’ of Indifference Curves: Results From Animal and Human Experiments’, American Economic Review 80, 912–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A.: 1979, ‘Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk’, Econometrica 47, 263–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knuuttila, S.: 1981, ‘The Emergence of Deontic Logic in the Fourteenth Century’, in R. Hilpinen (ed.), New Studies in Deontic Logic, Reidel, pp. 225–48.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • LaPidus, J. B. and Mishkin, B.: 1990, ‘Values and Ethics in the Graduate Education of Scientists’, in W. May (ed.), Ethics and Higher Education, Macmillan, pp. 283–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D. and Krantz, D. H.: 1971, ‘Conditional Expected Utility’, Econometrica 39, 253–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neilson, W. S.: 1991, ‘An Expected Utility-User’s Guide to Nonexpected Utility Experiments’, Texas AandM University Economics Working Paper (#91–17).

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, J. von and Morgenstern, O.: 1947, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, second edition, Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, R. A.: 1980, ‘Retribution and Related Concepts of Punishment’, Journal of Legal Studies 9, 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prior, A. N. 1954, ‘The Paradoxes of Derived Obligation’, Mind 63, 64–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L. J.: 1954, The Foundations of Statistics,Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D.: 1992, ‘Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,’ Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Wright, G. H.: 1971, ‘A New System of Deontic Logic’, in R. Hilpinen (ed.), Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, Reidel, pp. 105–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Wright, G. H.: 1951, ‘Deontic Logic’, Mind 60, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, J.: 1989, ‘The Maladroitness of Epistemic TIT FOR TAT’, Journal of Philosophy 86, 324–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1994 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dacey, R. (1994). Epistemic Honesty. In: Prawitz, D., Westerståhl, D. (eds) Logic and Philosophy of Science in Uppsala. Synthese Library, vol 236. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8311-4_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8311-4_21

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4365-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-8311-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics