§4 Values in Science

A common hallmark of the Reasonable Person is the belief that science is “value-neutral”—that the lab is a sanctuary where personal, social, and political biases cannot enter. However, philosophers of science, particularly those within the Feminist tradition, have demonstrated that science is a human practice. Because humans have values, science is inevitably shaped by them.

4.1 Constitutive vs. Contextual Values

Philosopher Helen Longino makes a vital distinction between the types of values that influence scientific work:

• Constitutive Values: These are the “internal” rules of science. They include a commitment to accuracy, consistency, simplicity, and testability. These values are essential for the scientific method to function.

• Contextual Values: These are “external” social, cultural, and political values. They include assumptions about gender roles, racial hierarchies, or economic priorities. These values often dictate what we choose to study and how we interpret ambiguous data.

4.2 The Feminist Critique of Objectivity

Feminist philosophers of science do not argue that we should abandon objectivity. Instead, they argue that “traditional objectivity” is often a “mask” for the perspectives of those in power (historically white, Western men).

1. Selection Bias: Contextual values determine which questions get funded. For decades, heart disease research focused almost exclusively on men, leading to a “scientific” understanding of heart attacks that ignored the different symptoms experienced by women.

2. Androcentric Interpretation: Data is often interpreted through a gendered lens. For example, in early 20th-century biology, the “active” sperm and “passive” egg were often described using language that mirrored social stereotypes of the time, rather than the actual biological interaction.

3. The Evidence of Sexism: As noted in The Atlantic, modern studies show that women in STEM face systematic “epistemic discounting”—their findings are scrutinized more harshly or attributed to male colleagues. This isn’t just a social problem; it’s a scientific one, as it prevents valuable data and perspectives from entering the field.

4.3 Social Objectivity: The Solution

If science isn’t value-free, how do we keep it reliable? Longino and others suggest that objectivity is not an individual trait, but a social property of the scientific community.

To be truly objective, a scientific community must satisfy four criteria:

• Venues: There must be recognized forums (journals, conferences) for criticism.

• Uptake: The community must actually change its mind in response to valid criticism.

• Public Standards: There must be shared, transparent standards for evaluating evidence.

• Tempered Equality: Intellectual authority must be shared among a diverse group of people. If everyone in the room has the same social location (standpoint), they will share the same “blind spots” and mistake their common values for “objective facts.”

§4 Summary Table: Values in the Lab