Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate values in climate modeling
- 515 Downloads
While it is widely acknowledged that science is not “free” of non-epistemic values, there is disagreement about the roles that values can appropriately play. Several have argued that non-epistemic values can play important roles in modeling decisions, particularly in addressing uncertainties (Moss and Schneider 2000; Kandlikar et al. (C.R. Geoscience 337:443-455, 2005); Risbey 2007; Biddle and Winsberg 2010; Winsberg (Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 22(2): 111-137, 2012); van der Sluijs (Climatic Change 75 (3) 359-389, 2012). On the other hand, such values can (even unconsciously) lead to bias (Pielke 2007; Oppenhiemer et al. (Science 317:1505-1506, 2007); Bray (Environmental Science & Policy 13:340-350, 2010); Oreskes and Conway 2010). Thus, it is important to identify when it is legitimate to appeal to non-epistemic values in modeling decisions. An approach is defended here whereby such value judgments are legitimate when they promote democratically endorsed epistemological and social aims of research. This framework accounts for why it is legitimate to appeal to non-epistemic values in a range of modeling decisions, while addressing concerns that the presence of such values will lead to bias or give scientists disproportionate power in deciding what values ought to be endorsed.
KeywordsClimate science Values in science Objectivity Aims of science Underdetermination Inductive risk
The author wishes to thank organizers and participants from the Workshop of the Roles of Climate Models for providing feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript as well as two anonymous reviewers.
- Agarwal, A. (2002). A southern perspective on curbing global climate change. In S. H. Schneider, R. Armin, & J. O. Niles (Eds.), In climate change policy: A survey (pp. 375–391). Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Biddle, J., & Eric, W. (2010). Value judgments and the estimation of uncertainty in climate modeling. In P. D. Magnus & B. Jacob (Eds.), New waves in philosophy of science (pp. 172–197). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
- Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
- Dupré, J. (2007). Fact and value. In H. Kincaid, J. Dupre, A. Wylie (Eds.), Value-free science: Ideals and illusions (p. 27–41). New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
- Epstein, S. (1996). Impure science; AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- IAC. (2012). Responsible conduct in the global research enterprise: a policy report. Amsterdam: InterAcademy Council.Google Scholar
- IPCC. (2008). Procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval and publication of IPCC reports,” Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work. Google Scholar
- IPCC. (2013). Working Group I conribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ Accessed October 2013.
- Lacey, H. (1999). Is science value-free? values and scientific understanding. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Lackey, Robert T. (2007). Science, scientists and policy advocacy,: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Papers. Paper 142.Google Scholar
- Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge : values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Mauritsen, T., B. Stevens, E. Roeckner, T. Crueger, M. Esch, M. Giorgetta, H. Haak, J. Jungclaus, D. Klocke, D. Matei, U. Mikolajewicz, D. Notz, R. Pincus, H. Schmidt L. Tomassini. (2013). Tuning the climate of a global model. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems. DOI: 10.1029/2012MS000154.
- Moss, R. H., & Schneider, S. H. (2000). Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: recommendations to lead authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. In R. Pachauri, T. Taniguchi, & K. Tanaka (Eds.), Guidance papers on the cross cutting issues of the third assessment report of the IPCC (pp. 33–51). Geneva: World Meteorological Organization.Google Scholar
- Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
- Schneider, S. H., & Kunz-Duriseti, K. (2002). Uncertainties and climate change policy. In S. G. Schneider, A. Rosencranz, & J. O. Niles (Eds.), Climate change policy: A survey (pp. 53–87). Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Scott, J. M., Rachlow, J. L., Lackey, R. T., Pidgorna, A. B., Aycrigg, J. L., Feldman, G. R., Svancara, L. K., Rupp, D. A., & Stanish, D. I. (2007). Policy advocacy in science: prevalence, perspectives, and implications for conservation biologists. Conservation Biology, 21, 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Stott, P. A., M. Allen, N. Christidis, R. Dole, M. Hoerling, C. Huntingford, P. Pall, J. Perlwitz, and D. Stone. (2011). Attribution of weather and climate-related extreme events, WCRP Position Paper on ACE. http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wcrp_2011-stott.pdf . Accessed June 2014.