Nov 30, 2024 12:15 AM
The dangerous myth of value-free science (part 1)
https://iai.tv/articles/the-dangerous-my..._auid=2020
INTRO: Scientists working for the World Health Organization recently found no evidence for links between cellphone radiation and brain cancer. But other scientists argue that there is good evidence linking cellphone use with increased tumor risk. Disagreement runs deep throughout science, so how can we trust its results? Some claim that to be trustworthy, science should strive to be unpolluted by ethical and political values. This is a mistake, argues Kevin C. Elliott. Aiming for the ideal of value-free science makes scientists less, not more trustworthy. It sweeps under the carpet the values that are unavoidably part of interpreting evidence and choosing between different scientific models. Instead, these values should be brought into the open, so that they can be subjected to much-needed scrutiny...
This is Part 1 of a 2-part series. Part 2 is available here (also below).
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Bias in science can and must be exposed (part 2)
https://iai.tv/articles/bias-in-science-..._auid=2020
INTRO: When science tries to free its methods from the influence of political and ethical values, it pursues a dangerous fantasy. Or so claimed Kevin C. Elliott in yesterday’s IAI article. Today, Jacob Stegenga argues that, on the contrary, scientists should always strive to keep their research free of all values. While many areas of science, from medical research to cosmology, are full of uncertainty and controversy, scientists can use the scientific method to gradually strip away their prejudices, and thereby uncover the best models and interpretations of evidence. Far from actively deploying their values in their research, as Elliott advocates, scientists should do all they can to keep their politics and ethics out of their research...
This is part 2 of a 2-part series. Read part 1 here (also above).
https://iai.tv/articles/the-dangerous-my..._auid=2020
INTRO: Scientists working for the World Health Organization recently found no evidence for links between cellphone radiation and brain cancer. But other scientists argue that there is good evidence linking cellphone use with increased tumor risk. Disagreement runs deep throughout science, so how can we trust its results? Some claim that to be trustworthy, science should strive to be unpolluted by ethical and political values. This is a mistake, argues Kevin C. Elliott. Aiming for the ideal of value-free science makes scientists less, not more trustworthy. It sweeps under the carpet the values that are unavoidably part of interpreting evidence and choosing between different scientific models. Instead, these values should be brought into the open, so that they can be subjected to much-needed scrutiny...
This is Part 1 of a 2-part series. Part 2 is available here (also below).
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Bias in science can and must be exposed (part 2)
https://iai.tv/articles/bias-in-science-..._auid=2020
INTRO: When science tries to free its methods from the influence of political and ethical values, it pursues a dangerous fantasy. Or so claimed Kevin C. Elliott in yesterday’s IAI article. Today, Jacob Stegenga argues that, on the contrary, scientists should always strive to keep their research free of all values. While many areas of science, from medical research to cosmology, are full of uncertainty and controversy, scientists can use the scientific method to gradually strip away their prejudices, and thereby uncover the best models and interpretations of evidence. Far from actively deploying their values in their research, as Elliott advocates, scientists should do all they can to keep their politics and ethics out of their research...
This is part 2 of a 2-part series. Read part 1 here (also above).
