Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-fg9bn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-13T02:10:35.365Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inquiry Tickets: Values, Pursuit, and Underdetermination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Marina DiMarco  and
Kareem Khalifa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We offer a new account of the role of values in theory choice that captures a temporal dimension to the values themselves. We argue that nonepistemic values sometimes serve as “inquiry tickets,” justifying scientists’ pursuit of certain questions in the short run, while the answers to those questions mitigate transient underdetermination in the long run. Our account of inquiry tickets shows that the role of nonepistemic values need not be restricted to belief or acceptance in order to be relevant to hypothesis choice: the relevance of nonepistemic values to a particular cognitive attitude with respect to h varies over time.

Information

Type
Ethics, Values, and Social Epistemology
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 86 , Issue 5 , December 2019 , pp. 1016 - 1028
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

Footnotes

†

We are grateful to Kevin Elliott for his careful and insightful attention to this argument and to audience members at PSA 2018 and members of the University of Pittsburgh HPS Works in Progress community for their feedback on earlier versions of the article.

References

Anderson, E. 1995. “Knowledge, Human Interests, and Objectivity in Feminist Epistemology.” Philosophical Topics 23 (2): 27–58..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barash, D. P. 1976. “Male Response to Apparent Female Adultery in the Mountain Bluebird (Sialia currucoides): An Evolutionary Interpretation.” American Naturalist 110 (976): 1097–101..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, J. 2013. “State of the Field: Transient Underdetermination and Values in Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 44 (1): 124–33..Google Scholar
Brown, M. J. 2013. “Values in Science beyond Underdetermination and Inductive Risk.” Philosophy of Science 80 (5): 829–39..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ChoGlueck, C. 2018. “The Error Is in the Gap: Synthesizing Accounts for Societal Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 85 (4): 704–25..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, L. J. 1992. An Essay on Belief and Acceptance. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Douglas, H. E. 2000. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 67 (4): 559–79..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. E.. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. E.. 2016. “Values in Science.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science, ed. Humphreys, P., 609–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Duhem, P. 1954. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, 2nd ed., trans. P. P. Wiener. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. C. 2011. Is a Little Pollution Good for You? Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. C.. 2017. A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. C., and McKaughan, Daniel J.. 2009. “How Values in Scientific Discovery and Pursuit Alter Theory Appraisal.” Philosophy of Science 76 (5): 598–611..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. C., and Willmes, D.. 2013. “Cognitive Attitudes and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 80 (5): 807–17..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1978. “Sociobiology: The Art of Storytelling.” New Scientist 80 (1129): 530–33..Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., and Lewontin, R. C.. 1979. “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 205 (1161): 581–98..Google Scholar
Haack, S. 1996. “Science as Social? Yes and No.” In Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science, ed. Nelson, L. H. and Nelson, J., 79–93. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, K. 2005. “Feminism, Underdetermination, and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 72 (5): 1001–12..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1977. “Objectivity, Value Judgement, and Theory Choice.” In The Essential Tension, 320–39. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacey, H. 1999. Is Science Value Free? Values and Scientific Understanding. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. 1977. Progress and Its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L.. 1990. “Demystifying Underdetermination.” In Scientific Theories, Vol. 14, ed. C. W. Savage, 267–97. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L., and Leplin, J.. 1991. “Empirical Equivalence and Underdetermination.” Journal of Philosophy 88 (9): 449–72..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. E.. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, S. D. 2004. “The Prescribed and Proscribed Values in Science Policy.” In Science, Values, and Objectivity, ed. Machamer, P. and Wolters, G., 245–55. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Morton, E. S., Geitgey, M. S., and McGrath, S.. 1978. “On Bluebird ‘Responses to Apparent Female Adultery.’” American Naturalist 112 (987): 968–71..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, L. H. 1990. Who Knows: From Quine to a Feminist Empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, L. H.. 1993. “Epistemological Communities.” In Feminist Epistemologies, ed. Alcoff, L. and Potter, E., 121–60. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Norton, J. D. 2008. “Must Evidence Underdetermine Theory?” In The Challenge of the Social and the Pressure of Practice: Science and Values Revisited, ed. Carrier, D. H. M. and Kourany, J., 17–44. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. 1951. “Main Trends in Recent Philosophy: Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” Philosophical Review 60:20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudner, R. 1953. “The Scientist qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments.” Philosophy of Science 20 (1): 1–6..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seselja, D., Kosolosky, L., and Strasser, C.. 2012. “The Rationality of Scientific Reasoning in the Context of Pursuit: Drawing Appropriate Distinctions.” Philosophica 86:51–82.Google Scholar
Whitt, L. A. 1990. “Theory Pursuit: Between Discovery and Acceptance.” In PSA 1990: Proceedings of the 1990 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, ed. Fine, Arthur, Forbes, Micky, and Wessels, Linda, vol. 1, 467–83. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Wilholt, T. 2009. “Bias and Values in Scientific Research.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 40 (1): 92–101..CrossRefGoogle Scholar