Marianne van Panhuys

The Argument from Inductive Risk (AIR) explicitly calls for the consideration of non-epistemic values whenever significant non-epistemic consequences, usually understood as harms towards individuals, groups or society at large, are foreseeable. In current philosophical literature, the AIR is often assumed to have limited relevance to fundamental research, particularly in fields like particle physics which has received little attention. This paper aims to address this gap by developing experimental particle physics as a problem case for standard formulations of the AIR. I argue that, although errors in particle physics do not consistently give rise to direct socio-ethical consequences of the kind emphasized in the literature, the field nevertheless involves significant forms of epistemic responsibility arising from its technological embeddedness and broader social entanglements. Moreover, I show that the scope of the AIR depends crucially on how risk is conceptualized. While a strictly decision-theoretic framework tends to exclude particle physics by narrowing the notion of risk, alternative approaches from the ethics of technology help capture indirect and uncertain consequences. The paper therefore argues for further refinement of the AIR, rather than its simple extension, and calls for a more explicit and pluralistic account of risk in the assessment of values in science.

In this paper, we present technical review practices in High-Energy Physics (HEP) as a collaborative mechanism for managing epistemic risks in the design and upgrade of large-scale detectors. Building on the concept of phronetic risk, which encompasses the epistemic consequences of practical decisions in science-engineering contexts, and drawing on empirical research conducted at the ATLAS collaboration at CERN, we show that technical review facilitates collective deliberation over non-epistemic values, thereby shaping which experimental directions are deemed pursuitworthy. Our analysis highlights an organizational approach to risk management in scientific practice, challenging the predominant focus on individual decision making in the philosophical literature on values in science.

In this paper, we present technical review practices in High-Energy Physics (HEP) as a collaborative mechanism for managing epistemic risks in the design and upgrade of large-scale detectors. Building on the concept of phronetic risk, which encompasses the epistemic consequences of practical decisions in science-engineering contexts, and drawing on empirical research conducted at the ATLAS collaboration at CERN, we show that technical review facilitates collective deliberation over non-epistemic values, thereby shaping which experimental directions are deemed pursuitworthy. Our analysis highlights an organizational approach to risk management in scientific practice, challenging the predominant focus on individual decision-making in the philosophical literature on values in science.

In present-day particle physics, empirical reasoning is highly inferential as experiments rely on complex instruments and an intensive use of computer-based methods. This paper investigates how these methods impact the evidential status of the data produced, using an expanded epistemic risk framework. Based on a case study from a top-quark physics experiment, we clarify the relationship between inductive and other epistemic risks. We argue that various epistemic risks that arise ahead of evidence affect the inductive risk of the experimental results, and propose an understanding of epistemic risk in relation to different epistemic goals. Specifically, the case study shows how experimental tasks and their associated goals relate to the epistemic aim of the experiment, by revealing modalities of risk and risk dynamics throughout the experimental process.