Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:41:49.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Whose social values? Evaluating Canada's ‘death of evidence’ controversy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Maya J. Goldenberg
Maya J. Goldenberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With twentieth- and twenty-first-century philosophy of science's unfolding acceptance of the nature of scientific inquiry being value-laden, the persistent worry has been that there are no means for legitimate negotiation of the social or non-epistemic values that enter into science. The rejection of the value-free ideal in science has thereby been coupled with the spectres of indiscriminate relativism and bias in scientific inquiry. I challenge this view in the context of recently expressed concerns regarding Canada's death of evidence controversy. The worry, raised by Stathis Psillos, is that as constructivist accounts of science demoted the previously secure status of evidence for drawing justified conclusions in science, we were left with no rational delineation between the right and wrong values for science. The implication for the death of evidence controversy is that we may have no rational grounds for claiming that the Canadian Government is wrong to interfere with scientific enterprise. But he does offer another avenue for reaching the conclusion that the wrong social values are directing the current stifling of some sectors of Canadian science. Psillos draws from standpoint epistemologies to devise a salient defence of ‘valuing evidence’ as a universalizable social value. That is, government bodies ought to enable scientific research via adequate funding as well as political non-interference. In this paper, I counter that (i) non-epistemic values can be rationally evaluated and that (ii) standpoint epistemology's universalizable standpoint provides an inadequate framework for negotiating social values in science. Regarding (i), I draw from the evidence-based medicine debate in philosophy of medicine and from feminist empiricist investigations into the science–values relationship in order to make the argument for empirically driven value arbitration. If social values can be rationally chosen in the context of justification, then we can have grounds for charging the Canadian leadership with being ‘at war with science’. (ii) I further argue that my recommended empiricist methodology is preferable to Psillos's search for universalizable perspectives for negotiating social values in science because the latter method permits little more than the trivial conclusion that evidence is valuable to science.

Keywords

evidencesocial valuesfeminist epistemology of sciencefeminist science studiesevidence-based medicine
Type
Symposium
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , June 2015 , pp. 404 - 424
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2015

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.)

References

Anderson, Elizabeth. 2004. “Uses of Value Judgments in Science: A General Argument, with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce.”; Hypatia 19 (1): 1–24.10.1111/j.1527-2001.2004.tb01266.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Elizabeth. 2006. “Replies to My Critics.”; Symposia on Gender, Race and Philosophy 2 (1). http://web.mit.edu/sgrp/2006/no1/Anderson0106.pdf.Google Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo. Forthcoming. “Social Values Influence the Adequacy Conditions of Scientific Theories: Beyond Inductive Risk.”; Canadian Journal of Philosophy. doi:10.1080/00455091.2015.1079004.Google Scholar
Brown, Matthew. 2013. “The Source and Status of Values for Socially Responsible Science.”; Philosophical Studies 163 (1): 67–76.10.1007/s11098-012-0070-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Closing of Research Stations Belies Ottawa's Claim That it is Protecting the Environment.”; 2013. Globe and Mail, March 19. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-take-heat-in-house-on-science-policy-closing-research-station/article10042858/.Google Scholar
Clough, Sharyn. 2003a. “A Hasty Retreat from Evidence: The Recalcitrance of Relativism in Feminist Epistemology.”; In Siblings under the Skin: Feminism, Social Justice and Analytic Philosophy, edited by Clough, Sharyn, 85–115. Aurora, CO: The Davies Group.Google Scholar
Clough, Sharyn. 2003b. Beyond Epistemology: A Pragmatist Approach to Feminist Science Studies. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Clough, Sharyn. 2013a. “Feminist Theories of Evidence and Biomedical Research Communities: A Reply to Goldenberg.”; Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2 (12): 72–76. http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-1aN.Google Scholar
Clough, Sharyn. 2013b. “Pragmatism and Embodiment as Resources for Feminist Interventions in Science.”; Contemporary Pragmatism 10 (2): 121–134.10.1163/18758185-90000262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1981. “Is the Sex of The Knower Epistemologically Significant?”; Metaphilosophy 12 (3–4): 267–276.10.1111/meta.1981.12.issue-3-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1991. What Can She Know? Feminist Theory and Construction of Knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, Philip. 2013. “What War on Science?”; Financial Post, October 21. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/10/21/what-war-on-science/.Google Scholar
Davison, Janet. 2012. “Scientists Rally on Parliament Hill to Mourn ‘Death of Evidence’.”; CBC News, July 9. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/scientists-rally-on-parliament-hill-to-mourn-death-of-evidence-1.1237215.Google Scholar
“Death of Evidence: Changes to Canadian Science Raise Questions That the Government Must Answer.”; 2012. Nature, July 19(Vol. 487): 271–272. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/487271b.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, John. 2012. “Comments on Philosophy of Science after Feminism, by Janet Kourany.”; Perspectives on Science 20 (3): 310–319.10.1162/POSC_a_00074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Environment Canada ‘Muzzles’ Scientists’ Dealings with Media.”; 2008. Ottawa Citizen, February 1. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=55e49c18-cb8d-45dd-a2d3-22dc0f053f18.Google Scholar
Evidence Based Medicine Working Group. 1992. “Evidence-based Medicine: A New Approach to Teaching the Practice of Medicine.”; Journal of the American Medical Association 268 (17): 2420–2425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Feds to Close Scientific Adviser Office.”; 2008. CBC News, January 22. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/feds-to-close-science-adviser-office-1.747908.Google Scholar
Galloway, Gloria. 2013. “Tories Take Heat in House on Science Policy, Closing Research Station.”; Globe and Mail, March 20. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-take-heat-in-house-on-science-policy-closing-research-station/article10042858/.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, Maya J. 2006. “On Evidence and Evidence-based Medicine: Lessons from the Philosophy of Science.”; Social Science and Medicine 62 (11): 2621–2632.10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.11.031CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldenberg, Maya J. 2014. “Diversity in Epistemic Communities: A Response to Clough.”; Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 3 (5): 25–30.Google Scholar
Goodyear, Gary. 2009. “Canadian Government Reaffirms Support for Science and Discovery [Letter].”; Nature 458 (April 16): 830. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7240/full/458830c.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodyear, Gary. 2012. Archived – Statement on the Harper Government's Support for Science, Technology and Innovation. News Release. Government of Canada. http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=685509&crtr.tp1D=1.Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, Trisha. 1999. “Narrative-based Medicine in and Evidence-based World.”; British Medical Journal 318 (30 Jan): 323–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groopman, Jerome. 2008. How Doctors Think. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Guyatt, Gordon. 1991. “Evidence-based Medicine.”; ACP Journal ClubMarch/April: A16.Google Scholar
Harari, Edwin. 2001. “Whose Evidence? Lessons from the Philosophy of Science and the Epistemology of Medicine.”; Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 35 (6): 724–730.10.1046/j.1440-1614.2001.00957.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haraway, Donna. 1998. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.”; Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1993. “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What is ‘Strong Objectivity’?”; In Feminist Epistemologies, edited by Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Elizabeth, 49–82. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1995. “‘Strong Objectivity? A Response to the New Objectivity Question.”; Synthese 104 (3): 331–349.10.1007/BF01064504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, Richard. 1998. “The Grammar of Interpretive Medicine.”; Canadian Medical Association Journal 158 (2): 245–249.Google Scholar
Horton, Richard. 1995. “The Interpretive Turn.”; The Lancet 346 (8966): 3.10.1016/S0140-6736(95)92644-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Intemann, Kristen. 2005. “Feminism, Underdetermination, and Values in Science.”; Philosophy of Science 72 (5): 1001–1012.10.1086/508956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0195145836.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klinkenborg, Verlyn. 2013. “Silencing Scientists.”; New York Times, September 21. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/opinion/sunday/silencing-scientists.html.Google Scholar
Kourany, Janet. 2010. Philosophy of Science after Feminism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732623.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry. 1990. “Demystifying Underdetermination.”; Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 14 (1990): 267–297.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry. 1996. Beyond Positivism and Relativism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry, and Leplin, Jarrett. 1991. “Empirical Equivalence and Underdetermination.”; The Journal of Philosophy 88 (9): 449–472.10.2307/2026601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Likwornik, Helena. Forthcoming. “Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? The Interweaving of Values and Science.”; Canadian Journal of Philosophy. doi:10.1080/00455091.2015.1079002.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1973. “The Normative Structure of Science.”; In The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, edited by Storer, Norman W., 267–278. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Miettinen, Olli S. 1998. “Evidence in Medicine: Invited Commentary.”; Canadian Medical Association Journal 158 (2): 215–221.Google ScholarPubMed
Montgomery, Kathryn. 2006. How Doctors Think: Clinical Judgment and the Practice of Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1990. Who Knows: From Quine to Feminist Empiricism. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Karen L., and Wolf, Johanna. 2010. “A Values-based Approach to Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change.”; Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1 (2): 232–242.Google Scholar
O’Hara, Kathryn. 2010. “Canada Must Free Scientists to Talk to Journalists.”; Nature 467: 501. September 30.10.1038/467501aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Psillos, Stathis. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Psillos, Stathis 2005. “Underdetermination Thesis, Duhem-Quine Thesis.”; In Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Borchert, D., Vol. 9, 2nd ed. 575–578. Detroit: Macmillan Reference.Google Scholar
Psillos, Stathis. Forthcoming. “Evidence: Wanted, Alive or Dead.”; Canadian Journal of Philosophy. doi:10.1080/00455091.2015.1079001.Google Scholar
Richardson, Sarah S. 2012. “Book Review: Science, Policy, and the Value-free Ideal, and: Philosophy of Science after Feminism.”; Feminist Formations 24 (2): 199–205.10.1353/ff.2012.0023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolin, Kristina. 2012. “A Feminist Approach to Values in Science.”; Perspectives on Science 20 (3): 320–330.10.1162/POSC_a_00068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Science in Retreat.”; 2008. Nature, February 21(Vol. 451): 866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shahar, Eyal. 1997. “A Popperian Perspective of the Term ‘Evidence-based Medicine’.”; Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 3 (2): 109–116.10.1046/j.1365-2753.1997.00092.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanenbaum, Sandra. 1994. “Knowing and Acting in Medical Practice: The Epistemological Politics of Outcomes Research.”; Journal of Health, Politics, Policy, and Law 19 (1): 27–44.10.1215/03616878-19-1-27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tonelli, Mark R. 2006. “Integrating Evidence into Clinical Practice: An Alternative to Evidence-based Approaches.”; Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 12 (3): 248–256.10.1111/jep.2006.12.issue-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, Chris. 2013. The War on Science: Muzzled Scientists and Wilful Blindness in Stephen Harper's Canada. Vancouver: Greystone Books.Google Scholar
Upshur, Ross E. G. 2002. “If Not Evidence, Then What? Or Does Medicine Really Need a Base?”; Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 8 (2): 113–119.10.1046/j.1365-2753.2002.00356.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed