Inconvenient Truth and Inductive Risk in Covid-19 Science

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/pom.2022.132

Keywords:

Values in Science, Noble Lie, Epistemic Risk, Trust, Public Health Ethics

Abstract

To clarify the proper role of values in science, focusing on controversial expert responses to Covid-19, this article examines the status of (in)convenient hypotheses. Polarizing cases like health experts downplaying mask efficacy to save resources for healthcare workers, or scientists dismissing “accidental lab leak” hypotheses in view of potential xenophobia, plausibly involve modifying evidential standards for (in)convenient claims. Societies could accept that scientists handle (in)convenient claims just like nonscientists, and give experts less political power. Or societies could hold scientists to a higher bar, by expecting them not to modify evidential standards to avoid costs only incidentally tied to error.

References

Adler, Jonathan E. 2002. Belief’s Own Ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Anderson, Elizabeth. 2004. “Use of Value Judgments in Science: A General Argument, with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce.” Hypatia 19, no. 1: 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2004.tb01266.x.

Biddle, Justin B. 2016. “Inductive Risk, Epistemic Risk, and Overdiagnosis of Disease.” Perspectives on Science 24, no. 2: 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1162/POSC_a_00200.

Boulicault, Marion and S. Andrew Schroeder. 2021. “Public Trust in Science: Exploring the Idiosyncrasy-Free Ideal.” In Social Trust, edited by Kevin Vallier and Michael Weber, 102–21. New York: Routledge.

Bright, Liam Kofi, Haixin Dang, and Remco Heesen. 2018. “A Role for Judgment Aggregation in Coauthoring Scientific Papers.” Erkenntnis 83, no. 2: 231–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-017-9887-1.

Broadbent, Alex. 2013. “Is Being Overweight Good for You?” philosepi: Philosophy of Epidemiology, Medicine, and Public Health, 3 June. https://philosepi.org/2013/06/03/overweight/.

Brown, Matthew J. 2020. Science and Moral Imagination: A New Ideal for Values in Science. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Bueter, Anke. 2022. “Bias as an Epistemic Notion.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 91: 307–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.12.002.

Calisher, Charles, Dennis Carroll, Rita Colwell, Ronald B. Corley, Peter Daszak, Christian Drosten, Luis Enjuanes, et al. 2020. “Statement in Support of the Scientists, Public Health Professionals, and Medical Professionals of China Combatting COVID-19.” The Lancet 395, no. 10226: e42–e43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30418-9.

CBS News. 2020a. “Full Transcript of ‘Face the Nation’ on March 8, 2020.” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/full-transcript-of-face-the-nation-on-march-8-2020/.

———. 2020b. “Transcript: Surgeon General Jerome Adams on ‘Face the Nation,’ July 12, 2020.” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-surgeon-general-jerome-adams-on-face-the-nation-july-12-2020/.

———. 2021. “Transcript: Dr. Anthony Fauci on ‘Face the Nation,’ November 28, 2021.” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-dr-anthony-fauci-on-face-the-nation-november-28-2021/.

ChoGlueck, Christopher. 2022. “Still No Pill for Men? Double Standards & Demarcating Values in Biomedical Research.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 91: 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.11.010.

De Ridder, Jeroen. 2022. “How to Trust a Scientist.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 93: 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.02.003.

Dethier, Corey. 2022. “Science, Assertion, and the Common Ground.” Synthese 200, article no. 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03580-7.

Douglas, Heather. 2000. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 67, no. 4: 559–79. https://doi.org/10.1086/392855.

———. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

———. 2017. “Foreword.” In Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science, edited by Kevin C. Elliott and Ted Richards, ix–xi. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Elgin, Catherine Z. 2017. True Enough. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Elliott, Kevin C. and Ted Richards, eds. 2017. Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Flegal, Katherine M., Brian K. Kit, Heather Orpana, and Barry I. Graubard. 2013. “Association of All-Cause Mortality with Overweight and Obesity Using Standard Body Mass Index Categories: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” JAMA 309, no. 1: 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.113905.

Franco, Paul L. 2017. “Assertion, Nonepistemic Values, and Scientific Practice.” Philosophy of Science 84, no. 1: 160–80. https://doi.org/10.1086/688939.

Gauchat, Gordon. 2012. “Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A Study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010.” American Sociological Review 77, no. 2: 167–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412438225.

Goldman, Alvin I. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Clarendon.

Havstad, Joyce C. 2022. “Sensational Science, Archaic Hominin Genetics, and Amplified Inductive Risk.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 52, no. 3: 295–320. https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2021.15.

Hempel, Carl G. 1965. “Science and Human Values.” In Aspects of Scientific Explanation, 81–96. New York: Free Press.

Holman, Bennett and Kevin C. Elliott. 2018. “The Promise and Perils of Industry-Funded Science.” Philosophy Compass 13: e12544. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12544.

Holman, Bennett and Torsten Wilholt. 2022. “The New Demarcation Problem.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 91: 211–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.11.011.

Intemann, Kristen. 2015. “Distinguishing between Legitimate and Illegitimate Values in Climate Modeling.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5: 217–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-014-0105-6.

———. 2022. “Understanding the Problem of ‘Hype’: Exaggeration, Values, and Trust in Science.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 52, no. 3: 279–94. https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2020.45.

John, Stephen. 2015. “Inductive Risk and the Contexts of Communication.” Synthese 192: 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0554-7.

———. 2019. “Science, Truth, and Dictatorship: Wishful Thinking or Wishful Speaking?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 78: 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.12.003.

———. 2021. “Science, Politics and Regulation: The Trust-Based Approach to the Demarcation Problem.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 90: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.08.006.

Knapton, Sarah. 2022. “Scientists Believed Covid Leaked from Wuhan Lab—but Feared Debate Could Hurt ‘International Harmony’.” The Telegraph, 11 January. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/11/scientists-believed-covid-leaked-wuhan-lab-feared-debate-could/.

Koskinen, Inkeri and Kristina Rolin. 2022. “Distinguishing between Legitimate and Illegitimate Roles for Values in Transdisciplinary Research.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 91: 191–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.12.001.

Lacey, Hugh. 1999. Is Science Value-Free? Values and Scientific Understanding. London: Routledge.

———. 2015. “‘Holding’ and ‘Endorsing’ Claims in the Course of Scientific Activities.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 53: 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.05.009.

Leonhardt, David. 2021. “Covid’s Partisan Errors.” The New York Times, 18 March. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/briefing/atlanta-shootings-kamala-harris-tax-deadline-2021.html.

Longino, Helen E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

———. 1995. “Gender, Politics, and the Theoretical Virtues.” Synthese 104: 383–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064506.

O’Donnell, Jayne. 2020. “Top Disease Official: Risk of Coronavirus in USA is ‘Minuscule’; Skip Masks and Wash Hands.” USA Today, 17 February. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/02/17/nih-disease-official-anthony-fauci-risk-of-coronavirus-in-u-s-is-minuscule-skip-mask-and-wash-hands/4787209002/.

Portmore, Douglas W. 2007. “Consequentializing Moral Theories.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88: 39–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0114.2007.00280.x.

Redding, Richard E. 2013. “Politicized Science.” Society 50: 439–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-013-9686-5.

Ross, Katherine. 2020. “Why Weren’t We Wearing Masks from the Beginning? Dr. Fauci Explains.” The Street, 12 June. https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus.

Rudner, Richard. 1953. “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments.” Philosophy of Science 20, no. 1: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1086/287231.

Schorr, Isaac. 2021. “Fauci Admits Post-vaccination Masking Was about ‘Signals’ Weeks after Insisting Otherwise.” The National Review, 18 May. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fauci-admits-post-vaccination-masking-was-about-signals-weeks-after-insisting-otherwise/.

“Shades of Grey.” 2013. Nature 497: 410. https://doi.org/10.1038/497410a.

Steel, Daniel. 2010. “Epistemic Values and the Argument from Inductive Risk.” Philosophy of Science 77, no. 1: 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1086/650206.

Thorp, H. Holden. 2020. “Science Has Always Been Political.” Science 369, no. 6501: 227. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd7628.

Van Fraassen, Bas C. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wagner, Wendy E. 2022. “No One Solution to the ‘New Demarcation Problem’? A View from the Trenches.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 92: 177–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.02.001.

Wilholt, Torsten. 2009. “Bias and Values in Scientific Research.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40: 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2008.12.005.

———. 2013. “Epistemic Trust in Science.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62, no. 2: 233–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axs007.

Winsberg, Eric, Naomi Oreskes, and Elisabeth Lloyd. 2020. “Severe Weather Event Attribution: Why Values Won’t Go Away.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 84: 142–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2020.09.003.

Yan, Holly. 2020. “Top Health Officials Have Changed Their Minds about Face Mask Guidance—but for Good Reason.” CNN, 20 July. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/19/health/face-masks-us-guidance/index.html.

Downloads

Published

2022-12-14

How to Cite

Lichtenstein, E. I. (2022). Inconvenient Truth and Inductive Risk in Covid-19 Science. Philosophy of Medicine, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.5195/pom.2022.132

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 1 (2022)

Section

Philosophical Perspectives on Covid-19

License

Copyright (c) 2022 Eli I. Lichtenstein

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
  9. The Author agrees to digitally sign the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work.