Abstract
Inconsistencies in science take several forms. Some occur at the level of substantive claims about the world. Others occur at the level of methodology, and take the form of dilemmas, or cases of conflicting epistemic or cognitive values. In this article, I discuss how methodological dilemmas arise. I then consider how scientists resolve them. There are strong grounds for thinking that emotional judgement plays an important role in resolving methodological dilemmas. Lastly, I discuss whether and under what conditions this reliance on emotional judgement is rationally warranted. I consider two possible mechanisms, based on coherence and induction, able to ensure that scientists’ emotional responses to methodological dilemmas are rationally warranted.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aiton, E. J. (1972). The vortex theory of planetary motions. London: Macdonald.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics (6th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Beller, M. (1996). The conceptual and the anecdotal history of quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 26, 545–557.
Beller, M. (1999). Quantum dialogue: The making of a revolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bohr, N. (1934). Atomic theory and the description of nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bunge, M. (1962). Intuition and science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cushman, F., Young, L., & Greene, J. D. (2010). Multi-system moral psychology. In J. M. Doris & the Moral Psychology Research Group (Eds.), The moral psychology handbook (pp. 47–71). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
da Costa, N. C. A., & French, S. (2002). Inconsistency in science: A partial perspective. In J. Meheus (Ed.), Inconsistency in science (pp. 105–118). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: G. P. Putnam.
Damasio, A. R. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Daston, L. (1995). The moral economy of science. Osiris, 10, 3–24.
Einstein, A. (1936). Physics and reality. Translated by J. Piccard. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 221, 349–382.
Frisch, M. (2005). Inconsistency, asymmetry, and non-locality: A philosophical investigation of classical electrodynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gowans, C. W. (Ed.). (1987). Moral dilemmas. New York: Oxford University Press.
Greene, J. D. (2009). The cognitive neuroscience of moral judgment. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (4th ed., pp. 987–1002). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Griffiths, P. E. (1997). What emotions really are: The problem of psychological categories. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gross, J. J. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of emotion regulation. New York: Guildford Press.
Gruber, H. E. (1981). On the relation between “aha experiences” and the construction of ideas. History of Science, 19, 41–59.
Kaiser, D. (1994). Bringing the human actors back on stage: The personal context of the Einstein-Bohr debate. British Journal for the History of Science, 27, 129–152.
Keller, E. F. (1979). Cognitive repression in contemporary physics. American Journal of Physics, 47, 718–721.
Krasner, L., & Houts, A. C. (1984). A study of the “value” systems of behavioral scientists. American Psychologist, 39, 840–850.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
LaFollette, H., & Shanks, N. (1996). Brute science: Dilemmas of animal experimentation. London: Routledge.
Laudan, L. (1984). Science and values: The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.
LeDoux, J. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
McAllister, J. W. (1996). Beauty and revolution in science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
McAllister, J. W. (2005). Emotion, rationality, and decision making in science. In P. Hájek, L. Valdés-Villanueva, & D. Westerståhl (Eds.), Logic, methodology and philosophy of science: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress (pp. 559–576). London: King’s College Publications.
McAllister, J. W. (2007). Dilemmas in science: What, why, and how. In A. in ’t Groen, H. J. de Jonge, E. Klasen, H. Papma, & P. van Slooten (Eds.), Knowledge in ferment: Dilemmas in science, scholarship and society (pp. 13–24). Leiden: Leiden University Press.
McMullin, E. (1983). Values in science. In P. D. Asquith & T. Nickles (Eds.), PSA 1982: Proceedings of the 1982 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (vol. 2, pp. 3–28). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.
Meheus, J. (Ed.). (2002). Inconsistency in science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Merton, R. K. (1942). The normative structure of science. Reprinted in R. K. Merton, The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, edited by N. W. Storer (pp. 267–281). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1973.
Newton-Smith, W. H. (1981). The rationality of science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Nickles, T. (2002). From Copernicus to Ptolemy: Inconsistency and method. In J. Meheus (Ed.), Inconsistency in science (pp. 1–33). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Norton, J. D. (2002). A paradox in Newtonian cosmology II. In J. Meheus (Ed.), Inconsistency in science (pp. 185–195). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Platt, W., & Baker, R. A. (1931). The relation of the scientific “hunch” to research. Journal of Chemical Education, 8, 1969–2002.
Prpic, K. (1998). Science ethics: A study of eminent scientists’ professional values. Scientometrics, 43, 269–298.
Rosenfeld, L. (1973). The wave-particle dilemma. In J. Mehra (Ed.), The physicist’s conception of nature (pp. 251–263). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ryle, G. (1954). Dilemmas: The Tarner Lectures, 1953. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scheffler, I. (1977). In praise of the cognitive emotions. Reprinted in I. Scheffler, Science and subjectivity (2nd ed., pp. 139–157). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1982.
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Thagard, P. (2000). Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thagard, P. (2002). The passionate scientist: Emotion in scientific cognition. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 235–250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vickers, P. (2008). Frisch, Muller, and Belot on an inconsistency in classical electrodynamics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59, 767–792.
Vickers, P. (2009). Was Newtonian cosmology really inconsistent? Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 40, 197–208.
Vihalemm, R. (2000). The Kuhn-loss thesis and the case of phlogiston theory. Science Studies, 13(1), 68–78.
Weingartner, P. (Ed.). (2004). Alternative logics: Do sciences need them? Berlin: Springer.
Whitaker, A. (2006). Einstein, Bohr and the quantum dilemma: From quantum theory to quantum information (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, B. (1965). Ethical consistency. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume, 39, 103–124.
Young, L., & Koenigs, M. (2007). Investigating emotion in moral cognition: A review of evidence from functional neuroimaging and neuropsychology. British Medical Bulletin, 84, 69–79.
Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Acknowledgments
I presented a previous version in the symposium, “Emotion in Scientific Reasoning”, 3rd Conference, European Philosophy of Science Association, Athens, October 2011. I thank my co-symposiasts, Jeff Kochan, Nancy Nersessian, Lisa Osbeck, Sabine Roeser, our chair, Hanne Andersen, and the audience for a successful session. I thank Otávio Bueno, Peter Vickers, and an unnamed referee of this journal for critical feedback on the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McAllister, J.W. Methodological dilemmas and emotion in science. Synthese 191, 3143–3158 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0477-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0477-3