Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-hn9fh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-22T12:08:59.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Epistemically Detrimental Dissent: Contingent Enabling Factors versus Stable Difference-Makers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Soazig Le Bihan  and
Iheanyi Amadi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this article is to critically build on Justin Biddle and Anna Leuschner’s characterization of epistemologically detrimental dissent (EDD) in the context of science. We argue that the presence of nonepistemic agendas and severe nonepistemic consequences offers neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for EDD to obtain. We clarify their role by arguing that they are contingent enabling factors, not stable difference-makers, in the production of EDD. We maintain that two stable difference-makers are core to the production of EDD: production of skewed science and effective public dissemination.

Information

Type
Values in Science
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 84 , Issue 5 , December 2017 , pp. 1020 - 1030
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arendt, Hannah. 1967/1967. “Truth and Politics.” In Truth: Engagements across Philosophical Traditions, ed. Medina, José and Wood, David, 295–314. Oxford: Blackwell. Originally published in the New Yorker, February 25.Google Scholar
Biddle, Justin B., and Leuschner, Anna. 2015. “Climate Skepticism and the Manufacture of Doubt: Can Dissent in Science Be Epistemically Detrimental?” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5 (3): 261–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C. 2013. “Douglas on Values: From Indirect Roles to Multiple Goals.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 44 (3): 375–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C., and McKaughan, Daniel J. 2014. “Nonepistemic Values and the Multiple Goals of Science.” Philosophy of Science 81 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, David. 2015. Creating Scientific Controversies: Uncertainty and Bias in Science and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, Daniel J. 2014. “A New Direction for Science and Values.” Synthese 191 (14): 3271–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, Kristen. 2001. “Science and Values: Are Value Judgments Always Irrelevant to the Justification of Scientific Claims?” Philosophy of Science 68 (Proceedings): S506–S518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, Kristen 2015. “Distinguishing between Legitimate and Illegitimate Values in Climate Modeling.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5 (2): 217–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1986. “Postscript to ‘Causation.’” In Philosophical Papers: Volume II, 172–213. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi, and Conway, Erik M. 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Thomson, Judith J. 2003. “Causation: Omissions.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (1): 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilholt, Torsten. 2009. “Bias and Values in Scientific Research.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 40 (1): 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, James. 2010. “Causation in Biology: Stability, Specificity, and the Choice of Levels of Explanation.” Biology and Philosophy 25 (3): 287–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar