SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Felsefe Arkivi / 2026 / Sayı: 58

Trust in Science in Light of the Role of Values in Science

Bilimde Değerlerin Rolü Işığında Bilime Güven

Faik Kurtulmus(SABANCI ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SANAT VE SOSYAL BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-0973-7610
Pages
1–21
Publication Date
2023-06-26
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These criteria include being applicable, fully utilizing scientific knowledge, addressing not just inductive risks but epistemic risks broadly, being aligned with the social organization of science, and being incentive-compatible.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The philosophy of science has recently highlighted the ineliminable role of social and ethical values in scientific reasoning, which poses challenges for ensuring trust in science.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This article evaluates three approaches to building public trust in science, given the role of values.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These criteria include being applicable, fully utilizing scientific knowledge, addressing not just inductive risks but epistemic risks broadly, being aligned with the social organization of science, and being incentive-compatible.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:bilim ve değerler · bilime güven · tümevarımsal risk

Abstract

The philosophy of science has recently highlighted the ineliminable role of social and ethical values in scientific reasoning, which poses challenges for ensuring trust in science. This article evaluates three approaches to building public trust in science, given the role of values. According to the high epistemic standards approach, scientists should only share results with the public that are highly certain. This paper argues that this approach doesn’t address all types of epistemic risks and can lead to underutilization of scientific findings. The democratic values approach maintains that scientific research should use democratically determined values. This paper argues that, while this approach addresses the shortcomings of the first approach, it also creates difficulties in the international and intertemporal coordination of research and has practical shortcomings. The hybrid approach offered by Boulicault and Schroeder combines elements of the first two approaches with Wilholt’s insights about the role of methodological conventions. However, it fails to combine the benefits of these approaches. The classification of research into discrete categories, essential for executing this approach, also proves to be difficult. The paper concludes that none of these approaches offers a comprehensive solution and highlights the key criteria that an effective solution should fulfill. These criteria include being applicable, fully utilizing scientific knowledge, addressing not just inductive risks but epistemic risks broadly, being aligned with the social organization of science, and being incentive-compatible.

Özet

Günümüz bilim felsefesi, sosyal ve etik değerlerin bilimsel akıl yürütmedeki kaçınılmaz rolünü vurgulamaktadır. Değerlerin bu rolü, toplumun bilime güveninin hangi temeller üzerine inşa edilmesi gerektiği sorusunu gündeme getirir. Bu makale, bu soruya cevap sunan üç yaklaşımı sunup değerlendirmektedir. Yüksek epistemik standartlar yaklaşımına göre, bilim insanları sadece oldukça kesin sonuçları halkla paylaşmalıdır. Bu makale, bu yaklaşımın sadece tümevarımsal riskler konusunda bize yardımcı olduğunu, diğer epistemik riskler konusunda aydınlatıcı olmadığını savunur. Bu yaklaşımın diğer bir eksiği ise bazı durumlarda bilimsel bulguların yetersiz kullanılmasına yol açmasıdır. Demokratik değerler yaklaşımı, bilimsel araştırmaların demokratik süreçler ışığında belirlenen değerleri kullanması gerektiğini ileri sürer. Bu makale, bu yaklaşımın bilimin uluslararası ve zamanlar arası doğasıyla gerilim içinde olduğunu ve pratik açıdan eksikleri olduğunu savunur. Boulicault ve Schroeder’in önerdiği karma yaklaşım, ilk iki yaklaşımın unsurlarını ve Wilholt’un metodolojik konvansiyonların önemine dair gözlemlerini harmanlar. Bununla birlikte, bu yaklaşım üç yaklaşımın faydalarını bir araya getiremez. Bu yaklaşımın diğer bir sorunuysa üç farklı yaklaşımın aynı anda kullanılmasının güçlüğüdür. Makale, bu yaklaşımların hiçbirinin kapsamlı bir çözüm sunmadığı sonucuna varırken, etkili bir çözümün yerine getirmesi gereken temel kriterleri sunar. Bu kriterler arasında pratik uygulanabilirlik, bilimsel bilgiyi tam olarak kullanma, sadece tümevarımsal risklerin değil, genel olarak epistemik risklerin başarıyla yönetilmesi, bilimin sosyal organizasyonu ile uyum ve teşvik uyumluluğu bulunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kurtulmus, F. (2023). Trust in Science in Light of the Role of Values in Science. Felsefe Arkivi, Sayı: 58, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.26650/arcp.1288215

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (30)

  1. Anlı, Ömer Faik. “Bilim Sosyolojisi Bağlamında Bilimin Dışsal Belirleyenleri Olarak Değerler.” Muhafazakar Düşünce Dergisi 9, no. 36 (2013): 77—99. google scholar
  2. Betz, Gregor. “In Defence of the Value Free Ideal.” European Journal for Philosophy ofScience 3, no. 2 (2013): 207-20. google scholar
  3. Biddle, Justin B., ve Rebecca Kukla. “The Geography of Epistemic Risk.” Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science, Derleyenler Kevin Christopher Elliott ve Ted Richards, 215-37. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. google scholar
  4. Boulicault, Marion, ve S. Andrew Schroeder. “Public Trust in Science: Exploring the Idiosyncrasy-Free Ideal.” Social Trust, Derleyenler Kevin Vallier ve Michael Weber, 102-21. New York, NY: Routledge: Routledge, 2021. google scholar
  5. Douglas, Heather. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science.” Philosophy ofScience 67, no. 4 (2000): 559-79. google scholar
  6. . Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2009. google scholar
  7. Elliott, Kevin C. A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2017. google scholar
  8. Gundersen, Torbj0rn, Donya Alinejad, Teresa Yolande Branch, Bobby Duffy, Kirstie Hewlett, Cathrine Holst, Susan Owens, vd. “A New Dark Age? Truth, Trust, and Environmental Science.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 47, no. 1 (October 17, 2022): 5-29. google scholar
  9. Harvard, Stephanie, ve Eric Winsberg. “The Epistemic Risk in Representation.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 32, no. 1 (2022): 1-31. google scholar
  10. Hardwig, John. “The Role of Trust in Knowledge.” The Journal ofPhilosophy 88, no. 12 (1991): 693-708. google scholar
  11. Irzık, Gürol, ve Faik Kurtulmus. “What Is Epistemic Public Trust in Science?” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 70, no. 4 (2019): 1145-66. google scholar
  12. Jeffrey, Richard C. “Valuation and Acceptance of Scientific Hypotheses.” Philosophy of Science 23, no. 3 (1956): 237-46. google scholar
  13. John, Stephen. “Inductive Risk and the Contexts of Communication.” Synthese 192, no. 1 (2015): 79-96. google scholar
  14. . “From Social Values to P-Values: The Social Epistemology of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” Journal ofApplied Philosophy 34, no. 2 (2017): 157-71. google scholar
  15. . “Epistemic Trust and the Ethics of Science Communication: Against Transparency, Openness, Sincerity and Honesty.” Social Epistemology 32, no. 2 (2018): 75-87. google scholar
  16. Kamözüt, Mehmet Cem. “Daha İyi Bir Yaşam Arayışımızda Bilimin Rolü: Bilim ve Değerler.” ViraVerita E-Journal, no. 9 (2019): 90-105. google scholar
  17. Kitcher, Philip. The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. google scholar
  18. . Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. google scholar
  19. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3. ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Levi, Isaac. “Must the Scientist Make Value Judgments?” The Journal of Philosophy 57, no. 11 (1960): 345—57. Longino, Helen E. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. google scholar
  20. Merton, Robert King. “The Normative Structure of Science.” The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, 267—78. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973. google scholar
  21. Mirowski, Philip. Science-Mart: Privatizing American Science. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2011. google scholar
  22. Oreskes, Naomi. Why Trust Science? University Center for Human Values Series. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2021. google scholar
  23. Reiss, Julian. Error in Economics: Towards a More Evidence-Based Methodology. London: Routledge, 2008. google scholar
  24. Resnik, David B. The Ethics of Science: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 1998. google scholar
  25. Rudner, Richard. “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments.” Philosophy of Science 20, no. 1 (1953): 1-6. google scholar
  26. Schroeder, S. Andrew. “Democratic Values: A Better Foundation for Public Trust in Science.” The British Journalfor the Philosophy ofScience 72, no. 2 (June 1, 2021): 545-62. google scholar
  27. Schutz, Bernard F. A First Course in General Relativity. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. google scholar
  28. Weber, Max. Methodology ofSocial Sciences. Somerset: Taylor & Francis Group, 1949. google scholar
  29. Wilholt, Torsten. “Epistemic Trust in Science.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64, no. 2 (2013): 233-53. google scholar
  30. Winsberg, Eric, Jason Brennan, ve Chris W. Surprenant. “How Government Leaders Violated Their Epistemic Duties During the SARS-CoV-2 Crisis.” Kennedy Institute ofEthics Journal 30, no. 3 (2020): 215-42. google scholar