Discussion-Based Philosophy Club Meeting

After much success with our first meeting, we want to continue the momentum with a second meeting which will be Thursday, October 11 at 7:00pm. This will be a discussion-based meeting focusing around the topic of "values in science," and Dr. Abrams and Dr. Vollmer have offered to moderate. The format will consist of a brief introduction given by either Dr. Abrams or Dr. Vollmer, followed by an open discussion periodically guided by the moderators. This is a no-pressure discussion/debate -- if you don't want to speak up or if you just want to come to listen and hear what people have to say, feel free. Likewise, if you have lots of opinions on this issue and feel that you would have something to offer the discussion, we definitely want you there. Below is a copy of the flyer that Dr. Vollmer created which gives more detailed information about the topic and the optional reading.

PHILOSOPHY CLUB DISCUSSION SESSION: VALUES IN SCIENCE

Come ready to express your view or contribute to the discussion of others views!
Drs. Vollmer and Abrams will moderate the discussion. Do not do any special reading for this event.

To get you oriented to the evening, here are the issues:
A traditional view is that science is fundamentally objective, however, values are occasionally involved in the practice of science and when they are, science becomes subjective. In this view, values can always be eliminated from science by being careful not to favor one hypothesis over another, for example, because it was originally your own. Call this the Values-Can-Go view.
More recently, however, philosophers tend to take one of two widely divergent views, neither of which accords with the traditional view. One of these views takes science to be unavoidably subjective, and the other thoroughly objective.
The subjective view claims that values are an essential part of science. Proponents of this view argue that science is subjective because results are always underdetermined. In other words, the same scientific evidence can be used to support more than one conclusion. Scientists nevertheless draw a single conclusion from a given set of data, as when a single curve is drawn through a set of points. Values are inevitably involved in selecting this conclusion, and they cannot be eliminated from science. Call this the subjectivist position.
In the Objectivist view, values are not a part of science. This view is defended using the notion, put forward originally by Hume, that moral claims are categorically different from factual claims and cannot be derived from them. Since science observes facts, the conclusions drawn from these facts necessarily have no moral implications, and so no value. Call this the objectivist position.

Which view to you endorse? The Values-Can-Go View? The Subjectivist position? Or The Objectivist position?

To give an example, take the case of an economist measuring the relative economic output of two countries. Suppose that, if his analysis were to reflect the high value he places on women’s stay-at-home work by including this work, he would arrive at a different conclusion from if his analysis were to reflect a lack of value by omitting it. Do you think that, therefore, his conclusion either way would be: 1) subjective, but the subjectivity could be eliminated (Values-can-go view); or 2) subjective, and the subjectivity cannot be eliminated (Subjectivist position); or 3) not truly subjective at all because an objective, value-free, interpretation of the case can be given (Objectivist position).

Questions for discussion include:
1) Do values need to be involved in science, or can they be eliminated?
2) At what point in the scientific process do values come into play, e.g., are they involved in a way that bears on how theories are established, or on how they are explained, or in some other way?
3) If you agree that value is involved in science, what kind is it – moral (good vs. bad), political (practical concerns), or epistemic (what kind of knowledge is seen as preferable)?