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
    The argument conflates the context of discovery with the ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Non-epistemic values (such as ethical value judgements) legitimately enter into stages internal to scientific reasoning, including data collection and interpretation.

    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.

    ?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.Discovery (how we find hypotheses) and justification (why we believe them) are logically distinct processes with different standards.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ethical choices in methodology are prescriptive about conduct, not descriptive about evidence quality or logical validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A well-designed study can be ethically sound yet still contain inferential fallacies independent of its ethical framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Experimental design choices (sampling, blinding, controls) directly constitute justificatory standards, not merely discover facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ethical constraints on research (e.g., informed consent, harm reduction) substantively shape what inferences are epistemically warranted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The sharp discovery/justification distinction oversimplifies; design values embed implicit inferential commitments throughout analysis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    A well-designed study can be ethically sound yet still contain inferential falla...Discovery (how we find hypotheses) and justification (why we believe them) are l...Ethical choices in methodology are prescriptive about conduct, not descriptive a...Ethical constraints on research (e.g., informed consent, harm reduction) substan...
    +3 moreShow less
    Experimental design choices (sampling, blinding, controls) directly constitute j...Non-epistemic values (such as ethical value judgements) legitimately enter into ...The sharp discovery/justification distinction oversimplifies; design values embe...

    Details

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