Science and its connection to the outside world- that is, the social and political spheres -has several important implications. The values that society places upon various issues is one of the biggest factors in deciding what scientific research will pursue. Some, like Thomas Kuhn, have argued for the value-free ideal within science, and promoted the function of autonomous science. Others, such as Heather Douglas, put forth that science can (and should) be directly influenced by the values society while still maintaining its status as a source of new, reliable knowledge. These two approaches to science are at complete odds with each other, and so they both cannot be absolutely correct. This paper will analyze these two approaches to the value-free ideal for science and the necessity of science to function autonomously.
According to Thomas Kuhn, after an issue is selected to be pursued by scientific research, the role of values (given by society) should diminish greatly if not completely. If the values of society come into play during this stage of scientific research, the outcome of that research could potentially be skewed or misinterpreted. As such, science performs its function best when isolated from outside influences such as social and/or political values.
For the most part, science functioning as an autonomous entity is science functioning correctly. If science were to operate within the same sphere of influence as society and politics, then the process of scientific research would inevitably be influenced in one way or the other to some extent. Even minor influences have the potential to impact and distort the results of scientific research. This is hugely problematic because anything from the testing of medical treatme...
... middle of paper ...
...nce’s function in policy making and bolsters the integrity of science, since the direct involvement of values in making a scientific assessment is one of the primary indicators of junk science or pseudoscience.
Overall, I think Douglas’ claim to the ‘value-laden’ ideal is more precise and effective than Thomas Kuhn’s argument for the value-free ideal. Kuhn’s ideal seems to be far more sweeping and general than Douglas’, whose seems to be more precise. Douglas’ ideal also attempts to compensate for things Kuhn’s theory is unable to do, such as the admittance that even the scientific researchers themselves will inevitably impart small biases of their own during research. Even the smallest, simplest decisions within science are affected directly or indirectly by outside values. The relationship between science and societal values is reciprocal and impossible to sever.
This can take a turn for the worse: if scientists have to have their work follow what politics, religions, and people believe, we might limit what science stands for. Religion and politics should never have control over science, instead they should use science to help explain their own goals. Science should be used as a way to challenge old beliefs and help clear out fact from fiction. At the same time though, science should challenge itself so it can stay true to its main point of challenging old dogmas, as Carl Sagan said in his article.
In her essay "Science, Facts, and Feminism" Ruth Hubbard makes many claims in relating her opinions about the relationship between men and women in society as well as the role science plays in this relationship and the balance of power in the world. One of her claims states that "the pretense that science is objective, apolitical and value-neutral is profoundly political because it obscures the political role that science and technology play in underwriting the existing distribution of power in society." In essence, she is saying that it is ridiculous to claim that science is an objective look at the world around us because science is constantly affected by society and the political establishment. I agree that it is impossible to claim that science is in every way separate from politics and power because those types of people who created the political world also created the scientific world to supplement and support it. For example, the government, a political and power establishment, created the Manhattan Project and put a huge amount of funding into a scientific project that produced the atomic bomb.
This perception results from a combination of personal experience and social integration. Kurtz argues that there are “two kinds of values within human experience [...] values rooted in unexamined feelings, faith, custom, or authority [...] and values that are influenced by cognition and informed by rational inquiry” (73). He reveals that one can base his values on either intangible beliefs, or on logical exploration, and suggests that the latter one is more correct. However, what is right or wrong is a matter of cultural interpretation, and what is wise today may not be wise tomorrow. Subsequently, it is the way we use scientific findings that matters more than what those findings actually are. In the cloning example, the only reason safety was considered an issue is because of the belief that we should not harm a human, given that we perceive our lives to be special. Even so, Galileo was persecuted and Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for suggesting that the earth goes round the sun and not vice versa. This is common knowledge now, having had our notions evolve with science, but it does not change the way the two of them, along with many others, were treated for going against the doctrine of their time. This proves that science does influence the way we factually look at things (eventually) but that we still use it according to our deeply rooted beliefs, creating divisions and tensions amongst our own
... effect all humanity, and therefore, need to not think on an individual level. J. Michael Bishop states that "The price of science seems large but to reject science is to deny future."(261).
d. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. Is Science Autonomous? American Psychologist, 23, 70. Retrieved February 13, 2011, from http://journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/article.cgi?issn=0003066x&issue=v23i0001&article=70_isa&search_term=%28title%3D%28is+science+autonomous%29%29 Messenger, E., Gooch, J., & Seyler, D. U. (2011). The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. Arguing About Science -.
...or Powertech and its Colorado land and project manager, urges that its company’s proposal be judged on facts; however, does Douglas have a bias towards Powertech, Would her statement be different if she wasn’t working for them, and is she being neutral. Douglas implies the words “good science”, the word “good” is subjective, and it means different things to different people. “Good” science cannot be pure good; it always has its “bad” aspects linked to it. As a result, “good” science alone can never provide the answers wanted.
Since the mid-20th century, a central debate in the philosophy of science is the role of epistemic values when evaluating its bearing in scientific reasoning and method. In 1953, Richard Rudner published an influential article whose principal argument and title were “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments” (Rudner 1-6). Rudner proposed that non-epistemic values are characteristically required when making inductive assertions on the rationalization of scientific hypotheses. This paper aims to explore Rudner’s arguments and Isaac Levi’s critique on his claims. Through objections to Levi’s dispute for value free ideal and highlighting the importance of non-epistemic values within the tenets and model development and in science and engineering,
Society seems to be divided between the idea if science is more harmful than helpful. We live in a world where humans depend on science and technology to improve important aspects of society, such as medical machinery, which supports the fact that science is more of a friend than a foe. Science is advancing every day. The United States has come a long way with its ongoing developments, giving individuals a chance to improve society as a whole. Not only does the United States benefit from such growth, but every modernized country does so as well. Through science and technology, individuals learn from past endeavors and apply it to present and future projects, paving the way for new discoveries and efficient enhancements
Without theories, scientists’ experiments would yield no significance to the world. Theories are the core of the scientific community; therefore figuring out how to determine which theory prevails amongst the rest is an imperative matter. Kuhn was one of the many bold scientists to attempt to bring forth an explanation for why one theory is accepted over another, as well as the process of how this occurs, known as the Scientific Revolution. Kuhn chooses to refer to a theory as a ‘paradigm’, which encompasses a wide range of definitions such as “a way of doing science in a specific field”, “claims about the world”, “methods of fathering/analyzing data”, “habits of scientific thought and action”, and “a way of seeing the world and interacting with it” (Smith, pg.76). However in this case, we’ll narrow paradigm to have a similar definition to that of a ‘theory’, which is a system of ideas used to explain something; it can also be deemed a model for the scientific community to follow. Kuhn’s explanation of a Scientific Revolution brings to light one major problem—the problem of incommensurability.
A nobel prize winning, architect of the atomic bomb, and well-known theoretical physicist, Professor Richard P. Feynman, at the 1955 autumn meeting of the National Academy of science, addresses the importance of science and its impact on society. Feynman contends, although some people may think that scientists don't take social problems into their consideration, every now and then they think about them. However he concedes that, because social problems are more difficult than the scientific ones, scientist don’t spend too much time resolving them (1). Furthermore he states that scientist must be held responsible for the decisions they make today to protect the future generation; also they have to do their best, to learn as much as possible,
Dr. Michael Shermer is a Professor, Founder of skeptic magazine, and a distinguished and brilliant American science writer to say the least. In His book The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People he sets out to embark on the daunting task of convincing and informing the reader on sciences’ ability to drives the expansion of humanity and the growth of the moral sphere. Although such a broad and general topic could be hard to explain, Shermer does so in a way that is concise, easy to understand, and refreshing for the reader. This novel is riddled with scientific facts, data, and pictures to back up shermers claims about the history of science, humanity and how the two interact with one another.
In “The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Research” it says, “they are the source of the methods, problem-field, and standards of solution accepted by any mature scientific community at any given time.” These new discoveries can lead then to advancements and as a result can lead them to build a better society. Human beings will be able to reconstruct a better institutional framework which will bring them a prosperous and happy
The issue shall discuss the various differences between science and other types of knowledge and discuss the argument whether the science can rely without the separate theories posted by non-scientific educational bodies. ...
"We often think of science as something inescapably linked to progress, and of progress as continually marching forward. We assume that there is something inevitable about the increase of knowledge and the benefits this knowledge brings" (Irvine & Russell). Provide humanity with wisdom and speculative enjoyment. This enjoyment of the public is through reading, learning and thinking. But scientists are met with the real research work.
...ieves that the knowledge is contributing to society. The scientist’s own drive to obtain knowledge versus the society’s need to obtain knowledge differ in the degree of limitations since the society’s moral judgments have more limiting factors on the methods to create the knowledge society demands rather than the artistic or scientific drive to obtain that knowledge.