Philippe Stamenkovic

The underdetermination or ‘gap’ argument (GA), and the inductive risk or ‘error’ argument (EA), are the two main arguments used to defend the influence of non-epistemic values on scientific reasoning. However, they are often presented in a superficial or imprecise way, and their mutual relationship is not clear. This article analyses their respective structures in detail, as well as their relationship with each other. The GA considers the logical structure of non-deductive inference (and of relative observation), and claims that (value-laden) background assumptions are needed to constitute (relative) observations and for those observations to confirm a hypothesis. It does not explicitly consider the consequences of these (value-laden) choices: rather, values are considered given and preexisting, so to speak. It is not normative: it claims that non-epistemic values are necessary to determine background assumptions in the sense that they are inevitable. By contrast, the EA considers the decision-theoretical problem of accepting or not a hypothesis, according to a (value-laden) required degree of confirmation. It is explicitly concerned with the consequences of these choices. It is normative: it claims that scientists should (in the sense of a moral obligation) take into account the non-epistemic consequences of their choices. By substituting the condition for hypothesis acceptance of the EA in the Bayesian account of the GA, one can provide a determinate limit when confirmation can be seen as sufficient to justify acceptance, thereby making the EA appear as a special case of the GA.

With the book Where to Land? How to Navigate Politics, Bruno Latour definitively abandons academic literature. This work unfortunately does not answer the questions posed. Bruno Latour's observation on global political deregulation, the explosion of inequality, and the denial of global warming is accurate. In response, he proposes an ideology with a political vocation (a political ecology). It plays on emotions by spiritualizing the Earth. The philosopher cannot accept the lack of argumentation or the vagueness of the statements. Bruno Latour's discourse risks being nothing more than an ideological mystification, quite useless in the period of doubt and uncertainty characteristic of post-modernity.

Latour’s actor-network ‘theory’ (ANT), and more generally Latour’s constructivist and relativistic work, has since long been debunked. (1) It does not make any sense, mixing all conceptual categories together (humans and non-humans, facts and moral prescriptions, science and politics); (2) nevertheless, it pretends to explain important issues such as our current environmental crisis and what to do to overcome it; (3) consequently, it can have extremely damaging political consequences. Latour’s ANT may perhaps be considered as a work of art but certainly not as a work of science. Unfortunately, I find that Anders Blok and Casper Bruun Jensen’s attempt to salvage it is unconvincing and inherits the same problems.

Straightening the current ‘value-laden turn’ (VLT) in the philosophical literature on values in science, and reviving the legacy of the value-free ideal of science (VFI), this paper argues that the influence of extra-scientific values should be minimised—not excluded—in the core phase of scientific inquiry where claims are accepted or rejected. Noting that the original arguments for the VFI (ensuring the truth of scientific knowledge, respecting the autonomy of science results users, preserving public trust in science) have not been satisfactorily addressed by proponents of the VLT, it proposes four prerequisites which any model for values in the acceptance/rejection phase of scientific inquiry should respect, coming from the fundamental requirement to distinguish between facts and values: (1) the truth of scientific knowledge must be ensured; (2) the uncertainties associated with scientific claims must be stated clearly; (3) claims accepted into the scientific corpus must be distinguished from claims taken as a basis for action. An additional prerequisite of (4) simplicity and systematicity is desirable, if the model is to be applicable. Methodological documents from international institutions and regulation agencies are used to illustrate the prerequisites. A model combining Betz’s conception (stating uncertainties associated with scientific claims) and Hansson’s corpus model (ensuring the truth of the scientific corpus and distinguishing it from other claims taken as a basis for action) is proposed. Additional prerequisites are finally suggested for future research, stemming from the requirement for philosophy of science to self-reflect on its own values: (5) any model for values in science must be descriptively and normatively relevant; and (6) its consequences must be thoroughly assessed.

This article discusses Sven Ove Hansson’s corpus model for the influence of values (in particular, non-epistemic ones) in the hypothesis acceptance/rejection phase of scientific inquiry. This corpus model is based on Hansson’s concepts of scientific corpus and science ‘in the large sense’. I first present Hansson’s corpus model of value influence with some introductory comments about its origins, a detailed presentation of the model with a new terminology, an analysis of its limits, and an appreciation of its handling of controversial non-epistemic values. I conclude that it is a very good candidate for managing value influence, because contrary to other models in the literature it is fairly simple, it provides a universal and systematic procedure for dealing with values, and it syste- matically preserves the epistemic integrity of science. I then study some difficulties associated with the model’s central feature of taking the maximum level of evidence required by the applications of a claim in order for the latter to enter the scientific corpus: the difficulty to identify this maximum requirement; the non-optimality of this requirement with respect to other less demanding requirements; the potentially detrimental consequences of the preference for false negatives over false positives on which it relies; and the issue of whether there can nevertheless be requirements higher than this maximum. I show that these issues may potentially challenge the corpus model. Finally, I call for empirical work (in particular, an investigation of scientists’ and engineers’ own normative views) in order to better assess these issues.

This article debunks Bruno Latour’s seemingly pro-scientific and well-intentioned posture. I briefly summarize Latour’s constructivist, relativist, hybridist, and mystic philosophy, insisting on his radicalization in his last two books. I show that Latour’s conception is akin to “pseudo-profound bullshit”, inasmuch as he tries to hide his mysticism behind the invocation of scientific facts. I then concentrate on Latour’s politicization of climate science, showing that it is: self-contradictory from an epistemological point of view, since it presupposes scientifically established facts while at the same time undermining their objectivity; counterproductive, and even dangerous, from the political point of view, since it recommends a full politicization of climate science and ignores its harmful effects. I conclude by advocating a distinction between science and politics, and by showing that Latour’s philosophy fosters our current post-truth predicament.

Le lecteur non averti n’aura peut-être retenu de "Où atterrir ?" que le fait que son auteur semble animé de bonnes intentions, pour ainsi dire (on fermera les yeux sur le complotisme et le populisme) : la défense de l’environnement, l’accueil des migrants, l’intégration européenne, etc. À cela je voudrais opposer quelques remarques. La première est que la conception de Latour correspond tout à fait à ce qu’Ernst Cassirer appelait la pensée mythique. La pensée mythique, d’après Cassirer, ne conçoit pas le monde comme constitué de choses stables, qui peuvent se manifester sous différents points de vue et à différentes occasions, mais plutôt comme un flux mouvant d’évènements liés entre eux par des qualités émotionnelles (menaçantes ou réconfortantes) et des caractères physionomiques. Ce monde obéit à des catégories de causalité, d’espace et de temps très différentes des nôtres : chaque partie contient le tout auquel elle appartient et dispose par conséquent du pouvoir causal du tout ; les différents lieux, directions ou moments sont déterminés en fonction de leur nature sacrée ou profane, menaçante ou désirable, etc. De plus, il n’y pas de différence essentielle entre le nom d’un objet et l’objet lui-même, etc. On aura constaté, à l’issue de cette note, qu’à bien des égards la pensée animiste et théologique de Latour fonctionne de la même manière. Par conséquent il faut considérer les livres de Latour comme des œuvres mythologiques, voire artistiques, qui peuvent éventuellement avoir un intérêt émotionnel ou esthétique, mais pas comme des ouvrages de sciences humaines et sociales. Je laisse à chacun le soin de juger de la qualité de ces œuvres, et du (dé)plaisir qu’elles procurent. C’est, bien sûr, tout à fait le droit de Latour d’écrire de tels livres, tant que, ce faisant, il ne fait pas montre de prétentions proprement scientifiques. Or, le problème est précisément qu’il prétend faire de la science (sociale), expliquer des phénomènes complexes et graves, et nous dire quoi faire face à eux. De ce point de vue, il faut tempérer les bonnes intentions dont je parlais, et on peut déceler une forme d’imposture voire de malhonnêteté intellectuelle dans le « pseudo-profound bullshit » que produit Latour. Ce dernier en effet, ne se contente pas de livrer un propos globalement dénué de sens, mais l’agrémente de termes et de faits scientifiques reconnus (comme le changement climatique) pour donner (faussement) l’impression qu’il fait sens. Il y a pire : même si le message de l’ouvrage est pour l’essentiel incompréhensible, le lecteur distrait gardera l’impression d’un brouillage irrémédiable des frontières entre nature et société, entre science et politique. Or ce brouillage non seulement rend incompréhensible toute notion de crise environnementale au niveau théorique, mais nuit évidemment à toute action pour y faire face au niveau politique. Ceci vaut en particulier pour le changement climatique, et les sciences qui le prennent pour objet – dont Latour préconise la politisation accrue. Or, si les sciences du climat sont avant tout politiques, plus rien ne distingue leurs énoncés de ceux des climato-négationnistes : il ne s’agit que d’énoncés également politiques en concurrence. La réalité du changement climatique d’origine anthropique peut ainsi facilement être remise en question. Et contrairement à ce qu’affirme Latour depuis qu’il prétend défendre la science, insister sur le fait que les faits scientifiques sont culturellement déterminés, et que l’objectivité scientifique dépend de processus sociaux et de négociations politiques, ne contribue pas à renforcer l’autorité de la science, au contraire. Par exemple, le scandale du climategate a miné la crédibilité des sciences du climat dans l’opinion publique américaine. Espérons donc que les recommandations de Latour ne fassent pas trop d’émules dans le grand public ou parmi les décideurs politiques – ce qui est hélas tout à fait possible étant donnée la grande notoriété dont il jouit.

There are various conceptions of objectivity, a characteristic of the scientific enterprise, the most fundamental being objectivity as faithfulness to facts. A brute fact, which happens independently from us, becomes a scientific fact once we take cognisance of it through the means made available to us by science. Because of the complex, reciprocal relationship between scientific facts and scientific theory, the concept of objectivity as faithfulness to facts does not hold in the strict sense of an aperspectival faithfulness to brute facts. Nevertheless, it holds in the large sense of an underdetermined faithfulness to scientific facts, as long as we keep in mind the complexity of the notion of scientific fact (as theory-laden), and the role of non-factual elements in theory choice (as underdetermined by facts). Science remains our best way to separate our factual beliefs from our other kinds of beliefs.

In February 2021, the French Minister of Higher Education and Research, Frédérique Vidal, ordered an inquiry – to be led by the French National Centre for Scientific Research – about the alleged “Islamo-leftism” which, according to her, was corrupting French academia. Vidal's concern was, purportedly, to distinguish “what falls under academic research and what falls under militancy and opinion”. She had in mind, in particular, recent interdisciplinary fields in the social sciences, such as Postcolonial Studies. Her statements caused a controversy in French academia as well as outside. The goal of this paper is to present this controversy and analyse it in light of the philosophical literature on autonomy of, and values in, science. After recalling the political and institutional context of the controversy, I present Vidal’s intervention and various reactions to it, which can roughly be classified pro and contra Vidal's statements. I then provide a philosophical discussion of the controversy, by recalling the philosophical debate to which it is related, and analysing the assumptions, arguments and actions of both camps. I show in particular that a political intervention inside the very production of academic knowledge implies a strong risk of censorship, and that letting academia self-regulate itself with respect to the validation of knowledge remains the best way to go. I conclude with the deeper questions raised by this controversy: the social role of universities, and the institutional aspects of scientific knowledge validation.

This paper tries to reconstruct Ernst Cassirer's potential reception of the EPR argument, as exposed by Einstein in his letter to Cassirer of March 1937. It is shown that, in conformity with his transcendental epistemology taking the conditions of accessibility as constitutive of the quantum object, Cassirer would probably have rejected the argument. Indeed, Cassirer would probably not have subscribed to its separability/local causality presupposition (which goes against his interpretation of the quantum formalism as a self-suf!cient condition constitutive of the quantum object, without any reliance on spatial intuition), nor to its completeness requirement (as his partial endorsement of Bohr's complementarity, and his rejection of the Kantian "idea of complete determination", illustrate). By rejecting both of its premises, Cassirer's philosophy of physics thus enables to escape the EPR dilemma, and exhibits what, in Kantian terms, might be called a "negative utility" with respect to physical science. A further investigation of the anti-reductionist utility of Cassirer's systematic philosophy with respect to physics and other "symbolic forms" is !nally suggested.