It is a common misconception that scientists are telling us something about the way the world is, independent of any perspectives or viewpoints that we might have about it. Social sciences are considered “soft” because they depict the world through the intermediary of cultural lenses. Natural sciences, on the other hand, are “hard” because they give definitive information about the world itself. Sadly, this is a misguided and inaccurate view, and it fails to account for the value-laden nature of the sciences.

The idea that science is “value-free” has been with us for some time now, and many proponents of science cite this feature as the source of modern sciences success. Critics of this view reply by claiming that the problems of the modern world, such as climate change, pollution, and inequality, suggest that there is something missing from the account of reality that science provides. As an informed citizen with an interest in truth, what are we to make of science?

First, I will suggest that it is important to deny the notion that science is value-free. This claim is based on the false belief that you can distinguish between the context of discovery, or the way in which knowledge is acquired, and the context of justification, or the validity of the knowledge that you have. In “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” Quine soundly defeated this notion, arguing that there is no way to separate these two contexts, and that something as simple as selection of a problem to study and choice of method represent value judgments that necessarily effect the knowledge acquired. There is a great deal of additional argumentation supporting this view, but the general point is that we would be wise to deny the notion of value-free science. It is simply not accurate.

The next step in coming to terms with what to make of science is to recognize value choices in science when we see them. For example, asking whether building a dam across the Colorado River is economically beneficial, without also asking if it is ecologically sound or acceptable to those who will be directly affected by it, is a value decision. We are stating, implicitly, that economics is more important than environmental and social issues. We do not necessarily have to determine if this is the right or wrong decision, but we should be aware that value decisions are being made in the process of scientific inquiry. Thus, we are able to paint a realistic picture of what science is actually telling us.

Finally, denying the value-free nature of science helps us to gain a broader spectrum of what knowledge can be. Clearly, some of the global problems that we are now facing strongly suggest that we are missing something important in our approach to knowledge acquisition. By opening the door to alternative notions of truth, we can hopefully find some solutions to the pervasive global issues that the Western scientific model has proven unable to deal with.

About the Author

Eli Weber is a graduate student in Environmental Ethics and a Graduate Teaching Assistant at Colorado State University. He holds bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman University and currently lives in Fort Collins, Colorado with his wife Laura. He is a regular contributor to Mindful Source.

Read More by This Mindful Author

Be Social:

del.icio.us :: Digg it :: Furl :: Spurl :: Yahoo MyWeb :: Google :: Squidoo :: StumbleUpon

Did You Enjoy This Article?

Join our free email newsletter to get exclusive articles just like this one!

Similar Mindful Articles:

• What Assumptions Do You Take for Granted?
• What Does Determinism Mean to You?
• Ethics in the Classroom
• Is Morality Real?
• Ethics at the Table: What Should We Eat?