Cargando…

Rebuttal to Douglas and Elliott

In “Should We Strive to Make Science Bias‑Free? A Philosophical Assessment of the Reproducibility Crisis”, I argue that the problem of bias in science, a key factor in the current reproducibility crisis, is worsened if we follow Heather Douglas and Kevin C. Elliott’s advice and introduce non-epistem...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Hudson, Robert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9239931/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35782721
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10838-022-09616-3
_version_ 1784737422764933120
author Hudson, Robert
author_facet Hudson, Robert
author_sort Hudson, Robert
collection PubMed
description In “Should We Strive to Make Science Bias‑Free? A Philosophical Assessment of the Reproducibility Crisis”, I argue that the problem of bias in science, a key factor in the current reproducibility crisis, is worsened if we follow Heather Douglas and Kevin C. Elliott’s advice and introduce non-epistemic values into the evidential assessment of scientific hypotheses. In their response to my paper, Douglas and Elliott complain that I misrepresent their views and fall victim to various confusions. In this rebuttal I argue, by means of an examination of their published views, that my initial interpretation of their work is accurate and that, in their hands, science is generally prone to deviations from truth.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9239931
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Netherlands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92399312022-06-30 Rebuttal to Douglas and Elliott Hudson, Robert J Gen Philos Sci Discussion In “Should We Strive to Make Science Bias‑Free? A Philosophical Assessment of the Reproducibility Crisis”, I argue that the problem of bias in science, a key factor in the current reproducibility crisis, is worsened if we follow Heather Douglas and Kevin C. Elliott’s advice and introduce non-epistemic values into the evidential assessment of scientific hypotheses. In their response to my paper, Douglas and Elliott complain that I misrepresent their views and fall victim to various confusions. In this rebuttal I argue, by means of an examination of their published views, that my initial interpretation of their work is accurate and that, in their hands, science is generally prone to deviations from truth. Springer Netherlands 2022-05-11 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9239931/ /pubmed/35782721 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10838-022-09616-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Discussion
Hudson, Robert
Rebuttal to Douglas and Elliott
title Rebuttal to Douglas and Elliott
title_full Rebuttal to Douglas and Elliott
title_fullStr Rebuttal to Douglas and Elliott
title_full_unstemmed Rebuttal to Douglas and Elliott
title_short Rebuttal to Douglas and Elliott
title_sort rebuttal to douglas and elliott
topic Discussion
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9239931/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35782721
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10838-022-09616-3
work_keys_str_mv AT hudsonrobert rebuttaltodouglasandelliott