Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:06:35.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Science, Biases, and the Threat of Global Pessimism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

K. Brad Wray
K. Brad Wray*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
*
†Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, University of British Columbia, 1866 Main Mall, E-370, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 1Z1, Canada.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Philip Kitcher rejects the global pessimists' view that the conclusions reached in inquiry are determined by the interests of some segment of the population, arguing that only some inquiries, for example, inquiries into race and gender, are adversely affected by interests. I argue that the biases Kitcher believes affect such inquiries are operative in all domains, but the prevalence of such biases does not support global pessimism. I argue further that in order to address the global pessimists' concerns, the scientific community needs criticism from people with diverse interests and background assumptions.

Type
Science and Values
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 68 , Issue S3: No. 3 Supplement: Proceedings of the 2000 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers Sep., 2001 , 2001 , pp. S467 - S478
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 2001

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.)

Footnotes

‡

Each of the following provided me with feedback on this paper: Lori Nash, Marc Ereshefsky, Kristina Rolin, David Davies, Mark Migotti, Bob Ware, Melinda Hogan, and Sergio Sismondo. Earlier versions of this paper were presented to the Philosophy Departments at St. Mary's University, East Tennessee State University, and the University of British Columbia, and at the annual conference of the Canadian Philosophical Association, and the Biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.

References

Antony, Louise (1996), “Quine as Feminist: The Radical Import of Naturalized Epistemology”, in Moser, Paul (ed.), Empirical Knowledge, second edition. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 365–421.Google Scholar
Barnes, Barry, Bloor, David, and Henry, John (1996), Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul (1981), Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul (1988), Against Method, revised 2nd ed. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Glen, William (1982), The Road to Jaramillo: Critical Years of the Revolution in Earth Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin (1999), Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1993), The Advancement of Science: Science Without Legend, Objectivity Without Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1997), “An Argument About Free Inquiry”, Nous 31:279–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry (1984), Science and Values, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Elisabeth (1997), “Feyerabend, Mill, and Pluralism”, Philosophy of Science 64 (Supplement): s396–s407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen (1990), Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen (1993), “Subjects, Power and Knowledge: Description and Prescription in Feminist Philosophies of Science”, in Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Elizabeth (eds.), Feminist Epistemologies. New York: Routledge, 101–120.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart ([1859]1956), On Liberty. New York: Liberal Arts Press.Google Scholar
Ruse, Michael (1979), The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Solomon, Miriam (1992), “Scientific Rationality and Human Reasoning”, Philosophy of Science 59:439–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, Miriam (1994), “Social Empiricism”, Nous 28:325–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stich, Stephen (1990), The Fragmentation of Reason: Preface to a Pragmatic Theory of Cognitive Evaluation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick (1998), “The Structure of a Scientific Paper”, Philosophy of Science 65:381–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel (1982), “Judgments Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases”, in Kahneman, Daniel, Slovic, Paul, and Tversky, Amos (eds.), Judgments Under Uncertainly: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–20.10.1017/CBO9780511809477.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, K. Brad (1999), “A Defense of Longino's Social Epistemology”, Philosophy of Science 66 (Supplement): S538–S552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, K. Brad (2000), “Invisible Hands and the Success of Science”, Philosophy of Science 67:163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar