Allowing non-epistemic values a direct internal role in interpretation generates underdetermination-by-values, making scientific claims hostage to political contingency rather than empirical constraint.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1.Underdetermination is real: multiple theories fit identical empirical data, so non-epistemic values inevitably fill interpretive gaps.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Values smuggled into interpretation without acknowledgment enable motivated reasoning, disguising political choices as scientific necessity.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Science's legitimacy depends on constraining conclusions to evidence; allowing values direct influence severs this critical connection.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

1 perspective

Reason against

1.The claim conflates values in *context of discovery* with values in *justification*; empirical evidence still filters final claims.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Excluding non-epistemic values is impossible—theory choice, data selection, and research priorities always involve value judgments regardless.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Transparent value engagement reduces political contingency more than pretended objectivity, which hides values from critical scrutiny.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Next step

Based on where you are in your exploration

Strongest counterpoint

Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

Key Terms

Empirical constraint(what the statement says should guide science, not politics): A limit or boundary set by what we can actually observe and measure in the world—the facts that force us to accept certain conclusions.
Epistemic values(describing what makes knowledge and theories valuable): The qualities we think are important when evaluating whether a belief or theory is good—like preferring ideas that are simple, consistent, or help us discover new things.
Non-epistemic values(Douglas (2000), p. 565): Ethical value judgements that enter into decisions at stages internal to scientific reasoning, such as data collection and interpretation, as distinct from purely cognitive or theory-evaluative criteria.
Political contingency(what the statement warns science might become hostage to): Things that depend on temporary political circumstances or who's in power, rather than on objective facts that would be true no matter what.
Underdetermination-by-values(the main problem described in the statement): When there isn't enough scientific evidence to choose between competing explanations, so our personal values or politics end up deciding which one we believe instead.
interpretation(Formal semantics for modal nonmonotonic logic): A complete, consistent set of literals
underdetermination(Philosophy of science; here applied (erroneously by some) to Gold's language learnability results): The epistemic situation in which a finite body of evidence is insufficient to uniquely determine the correct theory among competing alternatives

Connections

2 topics

Truth & Knowledge1 linked Moral Responsibility1 linked

Excluding non-epistemic values is impossible—theory choice, data selection, and ...Non-epistemic values (such as ethical value judgements) legitimately enter into ...

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 2 (1 for, 1 against)
Edits: 1 edit