Science Is not Value-free

Constructivist Foundations 10 (1):28-29 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Open peer commentary on the article “Second-Order Science: Logic, Strategies, Methods” by Stuart A. Umpleby. Upshot: The author claims that second-order science leads to “an awareness of our impact on our social and biological environment.” If this is true, it is sheer irresponsibility not to address the possibility that human activity is leading the biosphere to a point of catastrophic collapse. More generally, I hold that science should openly address explicitly value-laden issues

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,219

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Why science cannot be value-free.Agnieszka Lekka-Kowalik - 2010 - Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (1):33-41.
Do We also Need Second-order Mathematics?J. P. Van Bendegem - 2014 - Constructivist Foundations 10 (1):34-35.
Observer Effects in Research.M. C. Bateson - 2014 - Constructivist Foundations 10 (1):31-32.
The Promise and Prospects of Second-Order Science.D. Rousseau - 2014 - Constructivist Foundations 10 (1):37-38.
New Challenges to New Science.J. J. Hu - 2014 - Constructivist Foundations 10 (1):26-28.
Do We Need a Second-Order Science?M. A. Notturno - 2014 - Constructivist Foundations 10 (1):23-26.
Second-Order Science is Enacted Constructivism.M. R. Lissack - 2014 - Constructivist Foundations 10 (1):35-37.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-11-15

Downloads
10 (#1,474,523)

6 months
10 (#418,198)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references