Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T19:45:50.666Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inductive Risk and Values in Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Heather Douglas
Heather Douglas*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Puget Sound
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although epistemic values have become widely accepted as part of scientific reasoning, non-epistemic values have been largely relegated to the “external” parts of science (the selection of hypotheses, restrictions on methodologies, and the use of scientific technologies). I argue that because of inductive risk, or the risk of error, non-epistemic values are required in science wherever non-epistemic consequences of error should be considered. I use examples from dioxin studies to illustrate how non-epistemic consequences of error can and should be considered in the internal stages of science: choice of methodology, characterization of data, and interpretation of results.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 67 , Issue 4 , December 2000 , pp. 559 - 579
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, University of Puget Sound, 1500 North Warner, Tacoma, WA 98416-0094.

‡

I gave earlier versions of this paper at the Workshop on Values in Scientific Research at the University of Pittsburgh in October 1998 and at the Center for Nuclear and Toxic Waste Management at the University of California at Berkeley in November 1999. My thanks to those whose challenges and comments at those talks helped me refine these ideas. I also wish to thank Ted Richards for his continual help on this paper.

References

Brown, W. Ray (1991), “Implication of the Reexamination of the Liver Sections from the TCDD Chronic Rat Bioassay”, in Gallo, Michael, Scheuplein, Robert J. and Van der Heijden, Kees A. (ed.), Biological Basis for Risk Assessment of Dioxins and Related Compounds. Cold Spring Harbor, New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 13–26.Google Scholar
Churchman, C. West (1948), “Statistics, Pragmatics, and Induction”, Philosophy of Science 15: 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchman, C. West. (1956), “Science and Decision-Making”, Philosophy of Science 22: 247–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranor, Carl F. (1993), Regulating Toxic Substances: A Philosophy of Science and the Law. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather (1998), The Use of Science in Policy-Making: a Study of Values in Dioxin Science, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (1994), Health Assessment Document for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
Finkel, Adam M. (1988), “Dioxin: Are We Safer Now Than Before?”, Risk Analysis 8:161–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Dawn G. and Sauer, Robert M. (1992), “Hepatoxicity and Carcinogenicity in Female Sprague-Dawley Rats Treated with 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD): A Pathology Working Group Reevaluation”, Regulating Toxicology and Pharmacology 15: 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, John D. and Rhomberg, Lorenz (1996), “How Risks Are Identified and Assessed”, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 545: 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenlee, William F., Anderson, Melvin E., and Lucier, George W. (1991), “A Perspective on Biologically-Based Approaches to Dioxin Risk Assessment”, Risk Analysis 11: 565–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hempel, Carl G. (1965), “Science and Human Values”, in Aspects of Scientific Explanation and other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: The Free Press, 81–96.Google Scholar
Huff, J. E., Salmon, A. G., Hooper, N. K., and Zeise, L. (1991), “Long-Term Carcinogenesis Studies on 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins”, Cell Biology and Toxicology 7: 67–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeffrey, Richard C. (1956), “Valuation and Acceptance of Scientific Hypotheses”, Philosophy of Science 22: 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kociba, Richard (1991), “Rodent Bioassays for Assessing Chronic Toxicity and Carcinogenic Potential of TCDD”, in Gallo, Michael, Scheuplein, Robert J. and Van der Heijden, Kees A., (ed.), Biological Basis for Risk Assessment of Dioxins and Related Compounds. Cold Spring Harbor, New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 3–12.Google Scholar
Kociba, Richard, Keyes, D. G., Beyer, J. E., Carreon, R. M., Wade, C. E., Dittenber, D. A., Kalnins, R. P., Frauson, L. E., Park, C. N., Barnard, S. D., Hummel, R. A., and Humiston, C. G. (1978), “Results of a Two-Year Chronic Toxicity and Oncogenicity Study of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin in Rats”, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 46: 279–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, Thomas (1977), “Objectivity, Value, and Theory Choice”, in Thomas Kuhn The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 320–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Isaac (1962), “On the Seriousness of Mistakes”, Philosophy of Science 29: 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. (1990), Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. (1996), “Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy”, in Nelson, Lynn Hankinson and Nelson, Jack (ed.), Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machamer, Peter and Douglas, Heather (1999), “Cognitive and Social Values,” Science and Education 8: 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maronpot, Robert R., Jr.Mongomery, Charles A., Boorman, Gary A., and McConnell, Ernest E. (1986), “National Toxicology Program Nomenclature for Hepatoproliferative Lesions of Rats”, Toxicologic Pathology 14: 263–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMullin, Ernan (1983), “Values in Science”, in Asquith, Peter D. and Nickles, Thomas (ed.), Proceedings of the 1982 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume 1. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, 3–28.Google Scholar
Rooney, Phyllis (1992), “On Values in Science: Is the Epistemic/Non-Epistemic Distinction Useful?”, in Hull, David, Forbes, Micky, and Okruhlik, Kathleen (ed.), Proceedings of the 1992 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, 13–22.Google Scholar
Rudner, Richard (1953), “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments”, Philosophy of Science 20: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timbrell, John A. (1989), Introduction to Toxicology. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar