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?
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
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.
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.
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.
Becker, G.: 1968, ‘Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach’, Journal of Political Economy 78, 169–217.
Blais, M.: 1990, ‘Misunderstandings of Epistemic TIT FOR TAT: Reply to John Woods’, Journal of Philosophy 87, 369–374.
Biais, M.: 1987, “Epistemic TIT FOR TAT’, Journal of Philosophy 84, 363–375.
Block, M. K. and Heineke, J. M.: 1975, ‘A Labor Theoretic Analysis of the Criminal Choice’, American Economic Review 65, 314–25.
Camerer, C. F.: 1989, ‘An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 61–104.
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.
Chisholm, R. M.: 1963, ‘Contrary-to-Duty Imperatives and Deontic Logic’, Analysis 24, 33–6.
Dacey, R.: 1981, ‘An Interrogative Account of the Dialectical Inquiring System Based Upon the Economic Theory of Information’, Synthese 47, 43–55.
Ehrlich, I.: 1973, ‘Participation in Illegitimate Activities: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation’, Journal of Political Economy 81, 521–65.
Ehrlich, I. and Becker, G.: 1972, ‘Market Insurance, Self-Insurance, and Self-Protection’, Journal of Political Economy 80, 623–48.
Fishburn, P. and Kochenberger, G.: 1979, ‘Two-Piece von Neumann-Morgenstern Utility Functions’, Decision Sciences 10, 503–18.
Fçllesdal, D. and Hilpinen, R.: 1971, ‘Deontic Logic: An Introduction’, in R. Hilpinen (ed.), Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, Reidel, pp. 1–35.
Friedman, M. and Savage, L. J.: 1948, ‘The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk’, Journal of Political Economy 56, 279–304.
Glazer, M. P. and Glazer, P. M.: 1989, The Whistleblowers,Basic Books.
Hardwig, J.: 1991, ‘The Role of Trust in Knowledge’, Journal of Philosophy 88, 693–708.
Hardwig, J.: 1985, ‘Epistemic Dependence’, Journal of Philosophy 82, 335–349.
Hilts, P. J.: 1991, ‘Hero in Exposing Science Hoax Paid Dearly’, New York Times, March 22, pp. Al, A13.
Hintikka, J.: 1971, ‘Some Main Problems of Deontic Logic’, in R. Hilpinen (ed.), Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, Reidel, pp. 59–104.
Jeffrey, R. C.: 1983, The Logic of Decision,second edition, University of Chicago Press.
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.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A.: 1979, ‘Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk’, Econometrica 47, 263–91.
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.
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.
Luce, R. D. and Krantz, D. H.: 1971, ‘Conditional Expected Utility’, Econometrica 39, 253–71.
Neilson, W. S.: 1991, ‘An Expected Utility-User’s Guide to Nonexpected Utility Experiments’, Texas AandM University Economics Working Paper (#91–17).
Neumann, J. von and Morgenstern, O.: 1947, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, second edition, Princeton University Press.
Posner, R. A.: 1980, ‘Retribution and Related Concepts of Punishment’, Journal of Legal Studies 9, 71–92.
Prior, A. N. 1954, ‘The Paradoxes of Derived Obligation’, Mind 63, 64–5.
Savage, L. J.: 1954, The Foundations of Statistics,Wiley.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D.: 1992, ‘Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,’ Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323.
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.
von Wright, G. H.: 1951, ‘Deontic Logic’, Mind 60, 1–15.
Woods, J.: 1989, ‘The Maladroitness of Epistemic TIT FOR TAT’, Journal of Philosophy 86, 324–331.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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