The argument from inductive risk has become widely accepted as good reason to reject the value-free ideal. The literature that follows is then focused on where inductive risk judgements are required and whose values ought to determine them. The purpose of this paper is twofold. Firstly, to offer motivation for aiming at the value-free ideal, and therefore avoiding inductive risk. To do so I show that there is a tension between principles in science ethics and value encroachment because of induct…
Read moreThe argument from inductive risk has become widely accepted as good reason to reject the value-free ideal. The literature that follows is then focused on where inductive risk judgements are required and whose values ought to determine them. The purpose of this paper is twofold. Firstly, to offer motivation for aiming at the value-free ideal, and therefore avoiding inductive risk. To do so I show that there is a tension between principles in science ethics and value encroachment because of inductive risk. Secondly, I offer a renewed defence of Jeffrey’s response to the argument from inductive risk. By appealing to theories in epistemology about rational belief modelling, I argue that the Bayesian belief model offers a suitable alternative to current belief modelling in science, despite criticism that is either explicit in the literature or fairly expected to arise.
