Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T14:45:18.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assertion, Nonepistemic Values, and Scientific Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Paul L. Franco
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article motivates a shift in certain strands of the debate over legitimate roles for nonepistemic values in scientific practice from investigating what is involved in taking cognitive attitudes like acceptance toward an empirical hypothesis to looking at a social understanding of assertion, the act of communicating that hypothesis. I argue that speech act theory’s account of assertion as a type of doing makes salient legitimate roles nonepistemic values can play in scientific practice. The article also shows how speech act theory might provide a framework for fruitfully extending aspects of the social and pragmatic turns in the philosophy of science.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 84 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 160 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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

†

Thanks to Carole Lee, Colin Marshall, Jon Rosenberg, Conor Mayo-Wilson, and Alison Wylie for their encouraging and helpful comments on an earlier draft; to the audience at the University of Washington lunchtime works-in-progress series and Erin Kendig for fruitful discussions about ideas that led to the article; and to three anonymous reviewers for Philosophy of Science for their pointed and charitable suggestions for revising the article.

References

Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1963. “Performative-Constative.” In Philosophy and Ordinary Language, ed. Caton, Charles E., 22–33. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Caton, Charles E. 1979. “Performative Utterances.” In Philosophical Papers, ed. Urmson, J. O. and Warnock, G. J., 233–52. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biddle, Justin. 2013. “State of the Field: Transient Underdetermination and Values in Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44:124–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 1983. “Asserting.” Nous 17 (4): 637–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2000. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 67:559–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather 2003. “The Moral Responsibilities of Scientists: Tensions between Autonomy and Responsibility.” American Philosophical Quarterly 40 (1): 59–68.Google Scholar
Douglas, Heather 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather 2014. “The Moral Terrain of Science.” Erkenntnis 79 (5): 961–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1957. “Meaning.” Philosophical Review 66 (3): 377–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, Daniel J. 2014. “A New Direction for Science and Values.” Synthese 191 (14): 3271–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, Kristen. 2005. “Feminism, Underdetermination, and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 72 (5): 1001–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, Richard. 1956. “Valuation and Acceptance of Scientific Hypotheses.” Philosophy of Science 23 (3): 237–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, Stephen. 2012. “Mind the Gap.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43:218–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, Stephen 2015. “Inductive Risk and the Contexts of Communication.” Synthese 192:79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacey, Hugh. 2015. “‘Holding’ and ‘Endorsing’ Claims in the Course of Scientific Activities.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 53:89–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, Thomas, Nester, Eugene, Beary, Janet, Pendell, Dustin, Poovaiah, B. W., and Unlu, Gulhan. 2013. “White Paper on Washington State Initiative 522 (I-522): Labeling of Foods Containing Genetically Modified Ingredients.” Washington State Academy of Sciences. http://www.washacad.org/initiatives/WSAS_i522_WHITEPAPER_100913.pdf.Google Scholar
Martin, Adrienne. 2008. “Hope and Exploitation.” Hastings Center Report 38 (5): 49–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKaughan, Daniel J., and Elliot, Kevin C.. 2013. “Backtracking and the Ethics of Framing: Lessons from Voles and Vasopressin.” Accountability in Research 20 (3): 206–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKaughan, Daniel J., and Elliot, Kevin C. 2015. “Introduction: Cognitive Attitudes and Values in Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 53:57–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMullin, Ernan. 1982. “Values in Science.” In PSA 1982: Proceedings of the 1982 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 2, ed. Peter D. Asquith and Thomas Nickles, 3–28. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra. 2004. “The Prescribed and Proscribed Values in Science Policy.” In Science, Values, and Objectivity, ed. Machamer, Peter and Wolters, Georen, 245–55. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Pagin, Peter. 2015. “Assertion.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/assertion/.Google Scholar
Rolin, Kristina. 2015. “Values in Science: The Case of Scientific Collaboration.” Philosophy of Science 82 (2): 157–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Angus. 1986. “Why Do We Believe What We Are Told?” Ratio 28 (1): 69–88.Google Scholar
Rudner, Richard. 1953. “The Scientist qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments.” Philosophy of Science 20 (1): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, Leonard. 1972. The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1968. “Austin on Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts.” Philosophical Review 77 (4): 405–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John 1975. “A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts.” In Language, Mind, and Knowledge, ed. Gunderson, Keith, 344–69. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Steel, Daniel. 2010. “Epistemic Values and the Argument from Inductive Risk.” Philosophy of Science 77 (1): 14–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, Daniel 2013. “Acceptance, Values, and Inductive Risk.” Philosophy of Science 80 (5): 818–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Gary. 2004. “Asserting and Promising.” Philosophical Studies 117 (1/2): 57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar