Comments on: Facts, Values, and Scientists in Policy Debates http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3966 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: bob koepp http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3966&cpage=1#comment-6247 bob koepp Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:46:19 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3966#comment-6247 I think it's beyond dispute that scientific practice is shot through with all sorts of values. But we shouldn't lose sight of the difference between internal, epistemic values that are relevant to the assessment of how well the results of investigation comport with reality, and external values that are not relevant to questions of truth. Problems arise when people give short shrift to epistemic values in their enthusiasm to promote externalist agendas -- i.e., when accuracy and truthfulness is subordinated to achieving personal or social goals. The authority of science, such as it is, does not extend to questions of what values should receive expression in our choices about how best to live our lives. I think it’s beyond dispute that scientific practice is shot through with all sorts of values. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the difference between internal, epistemic values that are relevant to the assessment of how well the results of investigation comport with reality, and external values that are not relevant to questions of truth. Problems arise when people give short shrift to epistemic values in their enthusiasm to promote externalist agendas — i.e., when accuracy and truthfulness is subordinated to achieving personal or social goals. The authority of science, such as it is, does not extend to questions of what values should receive expression in our choices about how best to live our lives.

]]> By: David Bruggeman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3966&cpage=1#comment-6246 David Bruggeman Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:24:42 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3966#comment-6246 Francois' post brings up, for me anyway, a notable distinction. While I suspect the biases discussed above were politically oriented, what about scientific biases? That is, biases about research methods, problem choices, priorities in the research agenda, etc., that do not affect the conduct of science, but determine what is its focus. For example, science and technology policy research tends to be very field specific - always couched in terms of a particular scientific discipline or issue. This tends to discourage research in more general questions of science and technology policy. To wrestle this closer to topic - it prompts researchers to value certain facts and processes for reasons independent of the need to conduct research in a manner that can be replicable and rigorous. So it's not just a question of public/political values influencing the conduct of science, it also involves the values of the scientific community(ies) as they approach scientific research that influence the interaction of facts and values. Even if the scientist could be truly value-neutral politically, I doubt they could be value-neutral scientifically. Too many social forces to ignore. Francois’ post brings up, for me anyway, a notable distinction.

While I suspect the biases discussed above were politically oriented, what about scientific biases? That is, biases about research methods, problem choices, priorities in the research agenda, etc., that do not affect the conduct of science, but determine what is its focus. For example, science and technology policy research tends to be very field specific – always couched in terms of a particular scientific discipline or issue. This tends to discourage research in more general questions of science and technology policy. To wrestle this closer to topic – it prompts researchers to value certain facts and processes for reasons independent of the need to conduct research in a manner that can be replicable and rigorous.

So it’s not just a question of public/political values influencing the conduct of science, it also involves the values of the scientific community(ies) as they approach scientific research that influence the interaction of facts and values. Even if the scientist could be truly value-neutral politically, I doubt they could be value-neutral scientifically. Too many social forces to ignore.

]]> By: Francois Ouellette http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3966&cpage=1#comment-6245 Francois Ouellette Tue, 17 Oct 2006 01:07:30 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3966#comment-6245 Roger, The ideal of the value-neutral scientist has long been debunked, but it is still a useful myth that the scientific community likes to perpetuate in its dealings with the public... That would not, per se, be a problem in a situation where individual scientists have a range of values: say, spanning the traditional political spectrum from extreme right to extreme left. A problem arises, in my opinion, when the scientific community as a whole, say in a given field of inquiry, is biased to the point that those who do not share the values of the majority have difficulty expressing their views or conducting their line of research. Then the science itself is biased, and if it is policy relevant, the policy makers do not have access to the full range of views. Roger,

The ideal of the value-neutral scientist has long been debunked, but it is still a useful myth that the scientific community likes to perpetuate in its dealings with the public…

That would not, per se, be a problem in a situation where individual scientists have a range of values: say, spanning the traditional political spectrum from extreme right to extreme left.

A problem arises, in my opinion, when the scientific community as a whole, say in a given field of inquiry, is biased to the point that those who do not share the values of the majority have difficulty expressing their views or conducting their line of research. Then the science itself is biased, and if it is policy relevant, the policy makers do not have access to the full range of views.

]]> By: Understandascope http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3966&cpage=1#comment-6244 Understandascope Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:40:48 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3966#comment-6244 Whether scientists express their opinions about this or that particular issue is not what is problematic. What is problematic is that politics is about making decisions about this or that, often by next Thursday, next month, or perhaps after/before the next election. This is why the communication process you seem to have in mind gets corrupted: a decision is forced. Scientists don't have to make decisions this way -- their investigations can (that is, if they are doing science) continue on as long as it takes to settle doubt. This may take generations, or perhaps in some cases the investigation will be interminable. The idea that scientists can manipulate enquiry to preferred outcomes, however, or at the other extreme, stay out of the loop, seems to me to miss the point, or perhaps leads us to fall out of one kind of error into another. As soon as we put a time limit on enquiry, the process of science communication IS corrupted and made into some other kind of discourse, say, politics. Whether scientists express their opinions about this or that particular issue is not what is problematic. What is problematic is that politics is about making decisions about this or that, often by next Thursday, next month, or perhaps after/before the next election. This is why the communication process you seem to have in mind gets corrupted: a decision is forced. Scientists don’t have to make decisions this way — their investigations can (that is, if they are doing science) continue on as long as it takes to settle doubt. This may take generations, or perhaps in some cases the investigation will be interminable. The idea that scientists can manipulate enquiry to preferred outcomes, however, or at the other extreme, stay out of the loop, seems to me to miss the point, or perhaps leads us to fall out of one kind of error into another. As soon as we put a time limit on enquiry, the process of science communication IS corrupted and made into some other kind of discourse, say, politics.

]]>