Objectivity in Science

Stephen John

doi:10.1017/9781009063647

References

Alexandrova, A. (2017) A Philosophy for the Science of Well Being. New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Anderson, E. (2004) ‘Uses of value judgments in science: A general argument, with lessons from a case study of feminist research on divorce’. Hypatia, 19(1), 1–24

Axtell, G. (2015) Objectivity. Cambridge: Polity Press

Badano, G., John, S., & Junghans, T. (2017) ‘NICE’s Cost-Effectiveness Threshold’ in McClimans, L. (ed) Measurement in Medicine: Philosophical Essays on Assessment and Evaluation. London: Rowman and Littlefield

Bertolaso, M., & Sterpetti, F. (2019) ‘Evidence amalgamation, plausibility, and cancer research’. Synthese, 196(8), 3279–3317

Betz, G. (2013) ‘In defence of the value free ideal’. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 3(2), 207–220

Biddle, J. B., & Leuschner, A. (2015) ‘Climate skepticism and the manufacture of doubt: can dissent in science be epistemically detrimental?’ European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5(3), 261–278

Biddle, J. B., & Kukla, R. (2017) ‘The geography of epistemic risk’ in Elliott, K., ed. Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 215–238

Bird, A. (2019) ‘Systematicity, knowledge, and bias. How systematicity made clinical medicine a science’. Synthese, 196(3), 863–879

Bolinska, A. (2013) ‘Epistemic representation, informativeness and the aim of faithful representation’. Synthese, 190(2), 219–234

Borgerson, K. (2011) ‘Amending and defending critical contextual empiricism’. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 1(3), 435

Bowcott, O. (2019) ‘Judge rules against researcher who lost job over transgender tweets’. The Guardian 18 Dec 2019 www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/18/judge-rules-against-charity-worker-who-lost-job-over-transgender-tweets

Brown, M. J. (2019) ‘Is science really value free and objective?’ in McKain, K. and Kampouaris, K. (eds) What is Scientific Knowledge?: An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. London: Routledge

Churchman, C. (1948) ‘Statistics, Pragmatics, Induction’. Philosophy of Science, 15, 249–268

Culp, S. (1995). ‘Objectivity in experimental inquiry: breaking data-technique circles’. Philosophy of Science, 62(3), 438–458

Daston, L. and Galison, P. (2007) Objectivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Douglas, H. (2000) ‘Inductive risk and values in science’. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 559–579

Douglas, H. (2004) ‘The irreducible complexity of objectivity’. Synthese, 138(3), 453–473

Douglas, H. (2009) Science, Policy and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press

Fine, A.I. (1984) ‘The Natural Ontological Attitude’, in Leplin, J., (ed.), Scientific Realism. University of California Press, pp. 261–277.

Fine, A. (1998) ‘The viewpoint of no-one in particular’. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 72(2),7–20

Fricker, M. (2007) Epistemic Injustice. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Gaukroger, S. (2012) Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (Eds). (2002). Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Goldman, A. I. (2001) ‘Experts: Which ones should you trust?’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1), 85–110.

Goldman, A. I. (2002) ‘Knowledge and social norms. Review of the fate of knowledge, by H. Longino’. Science 296, 2148–2149

Hacking, I. (2015) ‘Let’s not talk about objectivity’ in Padovani, F., Eichardson, H & Tsou, Y. (eds) Objectivity in Science. Cham:Springer

Harding, S. (1991) Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press

Harding, S. (2015) Objectivity and diversity. University of Chicago Press

Hawley, K. (2014) ‘Trust, distrust and commitment’. Noûs, 48(1), 1–20.

Hicks, D. (2011) ‘Is Longino’s conception of objectivity feminist?’ Hypatia, 26(2), 333–351

Holman, B., & Geislar, S. (2018) ‘Sex drugs and corporate ventriloquism: how to evaluate science policies intended to manage industry-funded bias’. Philosophy of Science, 85(5), 869–881

Intemann, K. (2011) ‘Diversity and dissent in science: Does democracy always serve feminist aims?’ in Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 111–132

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (1998) ‘Principles governing IPCC work’. <https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf>

Irzik, G., & Kurtulmus, F. (2019) ‘What is epistemic public trust in science?’ The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 70(4), 1145–1166

Janack, M. (2002) ‘Dilemmas of objectivity’. Social Epistemology, 16(3), 267–281.

Jeffrey, Richard (1956) ‘Valuation and acceptance of scientific hypotheses’. Philosophy of Science, 23(3), 237–246

John, S. (2015) ‘The example of the IPCC does not vindicate the Value Free Ideal: a reply to Gregor Betz’. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5(1), 1–13

John, S. (2018) ‘Epistemic trust and the ethics of science communication: Against transparency, openness, sincerity and honesty’. Social Epistemology, 32(2), 75–87

John, S. (2019) ‘Science, truth and dictatorship: Wishful thinking or wishful speaking?’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 78, 64–72.

Jukola, S. (2015) ‘Meta-analysis, ideals of objectivity, and the reliability of medical knowledge’. Science & Technology Studies

Kitcher, P. (1990) The Advancement of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Koskinen, I. (2018) ‘Defending a risk account of scientific objectivity’. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

Kuhn, T. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press

Kuhn, T. (1977) ‘Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice’ in Kuhn, T.S., (ed), The Essential Tension – Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Kukla, R. (2012) ‘“Author TBD”: Radical collaboration in contemporary biomedical research’ Philosophy of Science, 79(5), 845–858

Kuo, L. (2019) ‘China’s leaders seeking to ‘draw strength from weakness’ in 2020’. The Guardian 28 Dec 2019 www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/28/chinas-leaders-seeking-to-draw-strength-from-weakness-in-2020

Lacey, H. (2005) Is Science Value-Free? London: Routledge

Levi, I. (1960) ‘Must the scientist make value judgments?’ Journal of Philosophy, 57, 345–357

Lewens, T. (2016) The Meaning of Science: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. London: Hachette UK

Lloyd, E.A. (1995) ‘Objectivity and the double standard for feminist epistemologies’. Synthese, 104(3), 351–381

Lloyd, E.A. (1998) The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Lloyd, E.A. (2005) The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Longino, H. (1990) Science as Social Knowledge Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Longino, H. (1996) ‘Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy’, in Nelson L.H. and Nelson J. (eds) Feminism, Science and the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 39–58

Longino, H (2002) The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Longino, H (2013) Studying Human Behaviour. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Ludwig, D. (2015) ‘Ontological Choices and the Value-Free Ideal’. Erkenntnis, 81(6), 1–20.

Mackie, J.L. (1977) Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. London: Penguin Books

McMullin, E. (1982) ‘Values in science’. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 3–28

Megill, A. (1994) ‘Introduction: Four Senses of Objectivity’ in Megill, A. (ed) Rethinking Objectivity. Durham: Duke.

Menzies, P., & Price, H. (1993) ‘Causation as a secondary quality’. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 44(2), 187–203

Nagel, T. (1986) The View From Nowhere. New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Nozick, R. (2001) Invariances. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Peters, U. (2020) ‘Illegitimate Values, Confirmation Bias, and Mandevillian Cognition in Science’. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1093/bjps/axy079

Planck, M.K. (1950) Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers. New York: Philosophical Library

Porter, T. (1994) Trust in Numbers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Proctor, R.N. (2001) ‘Commentary: Schairer and Schöniger’s forgotten tobacco epidemiology and the Nazi quest for racial purity’. International Journal of Epidemiology, 30(1), 31–34

Railton, P. (1984, January) ‘Marx and the Objectivity of Science’. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 813–826

Reiss, J. and Sprenger, J. (2017) ‘Scientific objectivity’ in Zalta E.N. (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/scientific-objectivity/

Rudner, R. (1953) ‘The scientist qua scientist makes value judgments’. Philosophy of Science, 20(1), 1–6

Schickore, J. (2008) ‘Doing science, writing science’. Philosophy of Science, 75(3), 323–343

Schroeder, S.A. (2017) ‘Using democratic values in science: an objection and (partial) response’. Philosophy of Science, 84(5), 1044–1054

Seaman, A. (2019) ‘We need a grown-up debate about climate change’. Spiked Online 29 April 2019, www.spiked-online.com/2019/04/29/we-need-a-grown-up-debate-about-climate-change/

Sen, A. (2009) The Idea of Justice Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Solomon, M. (1994) ‘Social empiricism’. Nous, 28(3), 325–343

Solomon, M. (2007) Social Empiricism. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Steel, D. (2010) ‘Epistemic values and the argument from inductive risk’. Philosophy of Science, 77(1), 14–34

Stegenga, J. (2011) ‘Is meta-analysis the platinum standard?’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 42(2011), 497–507

Steele, K. (2012) ‘The scientist qua policy advisor makes value judgments’. Philosophy of Science, 79(5), 893–904

Wilholt, T. (2009) ‘Bias and values in scientific research’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 40(1), 92–101

Wilholt, T. (2012) ‘Epistemic trust in science’. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 64, 233–253

Williams, B. (1985) Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. London: Fontana

Wright, J. (2018) ‘Rescuing objectivity: A Contextualist proposal’. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 48(4), 385–406

Wylie, A. (2003) ‘Why Standpoint Matters’, in Figueroa, R. and Harding, S. (eds), Science and Other Cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology. New York, NY and London: Routledge, pp. 26–48

Wynne, B. (1996) ‘May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert–lay knowledge divide’ in Lash, S., Szerszynski, B. & Wynne, B. (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London: SAGE

Wray, K.B. (1999) ‘A defense of Longino’s social epistemology’. Philosophy of Science, 66, S538–S552.

Zammito, J. (2004) A nice derangement of epistemes Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press

Objectivity in Science

This Element has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.

Book description

References

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Book summary page views

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

Accessibility Information