CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 49Philosophy, Science, and HistoryPhilosophy and History of ScienceFeminist Epistemology and Gender Studies

Science, Values, and the New Demarcation Problem

Open access
Resnik, David B., Elliott, Kevin C.·2023·Journal for General Philosophy of Science
DOI 10.1007/s10838-022-09633-2PMC PMC9944799
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In recent years, many philosophers of science have rejected the "value-free ideal" for science, arguing that non-epistemic values have a legitimate role to play in scientific inquiry. However, this philosophical position raises the question of how to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate influences of values in science. In this paper, we argue that those seeking to address this "new" demarcation problem can benefit by drawing lessons from the "old" demarcation problem, in which philosophers tried to find a way of distinguishing between science and non-science. Many of those who worked on this problem ultimately found that efforts to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for defining science failed, and most concluded that the best solution to the problem was to characterize scientific hypotheses, theories, and research programs in terms of some common norms. We suggest that those seeking to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate value influences on science would do well to adopt a similar approach. Rather than attempting to establish necessary and sufficient conditions for identifying appropriate value influences, it will be more fruitful to evaluate scientific activities based on their adherence to a set of epistemic and ethical norms that can be implemented in scientific practice by means of rules, conventions, policies, and procedures.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10838-022-09633-2

Cites

124 of 124 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Bias can also be a major concern in the execution of research, especially for decisions concerning data analysis or interpretation, which can be influenced by the values/interests of research sponsors or the researchers themselves.

    “Bias can also be a major concern in the execution of research, especially for decisions concerning data analysis or interpretation, which can be influenced by the values/interests of research sponsors or the researchers themselves [62].”

    From Autonomous artificial intelligence, scientific research, and human values (2026) · cites this paper as [62]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Bacon, Francis. 2000 [1620]. Novum Organon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Barnes, Barry. 1977. Interests and the Growth of Knowledge. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  3. Duhem, Pierre. 1914 [1954]. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, trans. P. W. Wiener. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  4. Elliott Kevin Values in Science 2022 Cambridge Cambridge University Press
  5. Fasce Angelo What Do We Mean When We Speak of Pseudoscience? The Development of Ademarcation Criterion Based on the Analysis of Twenty–One Previous Attempts Disputation: Philosophical Research Bulletin 2017 6 7 459 488
  6. Furberg Bengt D Furberg Curt D Evaluating Clinical Evidence: All that Glitters is not Gold 2008 2 Dordrecht, Netherlands Springer
  7. Gallin John Ognibene Frederick Johnson Laura Principles and Practice of Clinical Research 2018 4 London, UK Elsevier
  8. Haack Susan Federal Philosophy of Science: A Deconstruction - and a Reconstruction New York University Journal of Law and Liberty 2014 5 2 394 435
  9. Hull David Science as a Process 1990 Chicago, IL University of Chicago Press
  10. Kitcher Philip Abusing Science 1983 Cambridge, MA MIT Press
  11. Kitcher Philip The Advancement of Science 1993 New York, NY Oxford University Press
  12. Kuhn Thomas The Essential Tension 1977 Chicago, IL University Chicago Press
  13. Longino Helen Science as Social Knowledge 1990 Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press
  14. Merton Robert The Sociology of Science 1973 Chicago, IL University of Chicago Press
  15. Misak, Cheryl. 1995. Verificationism: Its History and Prospects. New York. NY: Routledge.
  16. Pigliucci Massimo Boudry Maarten Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem 2013 Chicago, IL University of Chicago Press
  17. Quine Willard V.O. From a Logical Point of View 1953 Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press
  18. Quine Willard V.O. Word and Object 1960 Cambridge, MA MIT Press
  19. Quine Willard V.O. Ullian Joseph The Web of Belief 1974 New York, NY McGraw-Hill
  20. Rescher, Nicholas. 1965. The Ethical Dimensions of Scientific Research. In: Beyond the Edge of Certainty: Essays on Contemporary Science and Philosophy, ed. Nicholas Rescher, pp. 261–276. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
  21. Resnik David B The Ethics of Science 1998 New York, NY Routledge
  22. Sellars, Wilfrid. 1956. Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind. In: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 1, ed. Herbert Feigl and Michael Scriven, 253–329. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  23. Wagner Wendy Steinzor Rita Rescuing Science from Politics 2006 Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press
  24. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1973 [1953]. Philosophical Investigations. Transl. Gertrude E.M. Anscombe. New York, NY: Pearson.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Resnik, D. B., & Elliott, K. C.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Resnik, David B.
ORCID
Venue
Journal for General Philosophy of Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-02-22
Volume
54
Issue
2
Pages
259-286
ISSN
  • 0044-2216 (ISSN-L)
  • 0925-4560
  • 1572-8587
DOI
10.1007/s10838-022-09633-2
PMC
PMC9944799
OpenAlex
W4321494540
Cited by
49
References
124
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 5
FWCI
44.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal for General Philosophy of Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy, Science, and History
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
Keywords
value-free ideal, value-laden science, demarcation problem, scientific norms, epistemic norms, scientific practice, scientific research programs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review