Wissenschaftsfreiheit, Moralische Kritik und die Kosten des Irrtums.
This article attempts to do justice to two conflicting positions in current public debates. On the one hand, it defends a strong version of scientific freedom, according to which science should be free, not only from external obstacles and pressures but also from criticism that is based on reasons "...
| Published in: | Erkenntnis Vol. 90; no. 3; pp. 799 - 827 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Springer Nature
Mar2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=183852632&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 183852632 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 01650106 5KZ jtl: Erkenntnis issn: 01650106 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Mar2025 vid: 90 iid: 3 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 183852632 10.1007/s10670-023-00715-1 ppf: 799 ppct: 28 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 957KB tig: atl: Wissenschaftsfreiheit, Moralische Kritik und die Kosten des Irrtums. aug: au: Henning, Tim affil: https://ror.org/023b0x485 Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany su: Religious studies Conformity Intelligence levels Genetics Criticism sug: subj: Religious studies Conformity Intelligence levels Genetics Criticism keyword: Philosophy and Religious Studies Philosophy ab: This article attempts to do justice to two conflicting positions in current public debates. On the one hand, it defends a strong version of scientific freedom, according to which science should be free, not only from external obstacles and pressures but also from criticism that is based on reasons "of the wrong kind." The only admissible criterion in debates about scientific claims, I argue, is whether there is sufficient evidence for their truth. Furthermore, I accept the anti-moralistic view that (non-)conformity with moral ideals is never itself evidence. On the other hand, the article nevertheless argues that there is a possibility of legitimate moral criticism of moral claims. This argument relies on the popular (if controversial) idea that there is pragmatic encroachment – specifically, the idea that the standard of sufficiency for evidence is in part determined by pragmatic factors like the costs of error. This opens up the door for a certain type of legitimate moral criticism. For the costs that determine a standard of sufficiency for epistemic justification can also plausibly count as morally significant. There is thus a con-contingent connection between epistemic and moral defects of certain scientific claims. The resulting view is applied to concrete debates, most importantly about race, genetics and IQ. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: German refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Erkenntnis is a copyright of Springer, 2025. All Rights Reserved. item: Erkenntnis holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2025 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|