Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Non-epistemic values (such as ethical value judgements) legitimately enter into stages internal to scientific reasoning, including data collection and interpretation.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The argument conflates the context of discovery with the context of justification; ethical choices in experimental design do not thereby validate values within inference itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Reichenbach's distinction holds that normative considerations shaping data collection are external procedural constraints, not internal logical components of scientific reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A conclusion about threshold-setting being ethical does not entail that the epistemic warrant of resulting knowledge claims is partially constituted by those ethical judgements.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Heather Douglas's own 'indirect role' thesis concedes that values should constrain evidential standards without determining what the evidence itself means, preserving a principled boundary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.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.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The normative force of scientific consensus historically depends on its perceived insulation from interest-laden reasoning, so legitimising internal value-ladenness is self-undermining institutionally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Scientists must make decisions—such as setting thresholds for statistical significance—that cannot be resolved by empirical data alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Such decisions require balancing the acceptability of false positives against false negatives, which is an ethical judgement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The responsibility for these decisions cannot be offloaded to non-scientists.
      ?

      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.