Advertisement

Foundations of Science

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 257–268 | Cite as

Values in pure and applied science

  • Sven Ove Hansson
Article

Abstract

In pure science, the standard approach to non-epistemic values is to exclude them as far as possible from scientific deliberations. When science is applied to practical decisions, non-epistemic values cannot be excluded. Instead, they have to be combined with (value-deprived) scientific information in a way that leads to practically optimal decisions. A normative model is proposed for the processing of information in both pure and applied science. A general-purpose corpus of scientific knowledge, with high entry requirements, has a central role in this model. Due to its high entry requirements, the information that it contains is sufficiently reliable for the vast majority of practical purposes. However, for some purposes, the corpus needs to be supplemented with additional information, such as scientific indications of danger that do not satisfy the entry requirements for the corpus. The role of non-epistemic values in the evaluation of scientific information should, as far as possible, be limited to determining the level of evidence required for various types of practical decisions.

Keywords

Corpus Values in science Epistemic values Non-epistemic values Scientific values Applied science Pure science 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cranor C.F. (1990). Some moral issues in risk assessment. Ethics 101: 123–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dobbins J.G. (1987). Regulation and the use of ’negative’ results from human reproductive studies: The case of ethylene dibromide. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 12: 33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Durodié B. (2003). The true cost of precautionary chemicals regulation. Risk Analysis 23(2): 389–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Feleppa R. (1981). Epistemic utility and theory acceptance: Comments on Hempel. Synthese 46: 413–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gray J.S., Bewers M. (1996). Towards a scientific definition of the precautionary principle. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32(11): 768–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hansson S.O. (1995). The detection level. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 22: 103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hansson S.O. (1996). What is philosophy of risk? Theoria 62: 169–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hansson S.O. (1999). Adjusting scientific practices to the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5: 909–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hansson S.O. (2004). Philosophical Perspectives on Risk. Techne 8(1): 10–35Google Scholar
  10. Hansson S.O. (2006a). Falsificationism falsified. Foundations of Science 11: 275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hansson, S. O. (2006b). Praxis relevance in science. Foundations of Science (in press).Google Scholar
  12. Harsanyi J.C. (1983). Bayesian decision theory, subjective and objective probabilities, and acceptance of empirical hypotheses. Synthese 57: 341–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hempel C.G. (1960). Inductive inconsistencies. Synthese 12: 439–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jeffrey R.C. (1956). Valuation and acceptance of scientific hypotheses. Philosophy of Science 23: 237–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levi I. (1962). On the seriousness of mistakes. Philosophy of Science 29: 47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McLaughlin A. (1970). Science, reason and value. Theory and Decision 1: 121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mooney C. (2005). The republican war on science. New York, Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  18. Peirce C. (1934) The fixation of belief. In: Hartshorne C., Weiss P. (eds). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vol. 5. Harvard University Press, Harvard, pp 223–247Google Scholar
  19. Rudner R. (1953). The scientist qua scientist makes value judgments. Philosophy of Science 20: 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sandin P. (1999). Dimensions of the Precautionary Principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5(5): 889–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sandin P., Peterson M., Hansson S.O., Rudén C., Juthe A. (2002). Five charges against the precautionary principle. Journal of Risk Research 5: 287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ziman J. (1996). ‘Postacademic science’: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies 9: 67–80Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and the History of TechnologyRoyal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations