Longino Science as Social Knowledge Helen Longino (1944-) American OBJECTIVITY IN SCIENCE—COMMON VIEW: Science gives an accurate description of facts of the world (SCIENTIFIC REALISM) Science is accurate because it is based on the scientific method Scientific theories and ‘facts’ rely on non-arbitrary and non-subjective criteria (SCIENTIFIC METHOD) Science is -non-arbitrary and non-subjective

Longino OBJECTIVITY OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD Data well formed—if the data are well formed this does not guarantee scientific objectivity Criteria of theory & hypothesis justification can be subjective and arbitrary Popper, Feigl, look to criteria in terms of logic and standards to validate objectivity in science. Modern sociological approach looks to the history of science and actual practice of science and sees objectivity is lacking Longino uses both approaches to show that objectivity flourishes in communities of scientists

Longino Her questions are: Does the history of scientific practice show objectivity or not? Since science must be theory-laden, can scientists overcome their inherited paradigms to reach any objectivity?

Longino Objectivity of scientific method Longino Distinction between: Objectivity of scientific method Objectivity of individual scientists

Longino Traditional Positivist Approach-- views objectivity as exemplified in individual scientists Kuhnian Approach—no scientist can overcome his education in order to be truly objective (Kuhn still works within the individualist approach)

Longino SCIENCE AS PRACTICE—M. Grene’s delineation: Fields of Science as ‘social enterprises’—interdependent group members working together Scientists-- as educated professionals Scientists--dependent on society valuing what they do

Longino BIG SCIENCE : (teams of scientists work on large projects & work is parceled out in pieces to different teams) today precludes the traditional view of the lone scientist the practice of BIG SCIENCE means no one deserves full credit for developments in contemporary science.

Longino Moreover, all science is social, not individual—revolutions in science “rely on previous work and rest on a tradition.” p.68 “Production of knowledge is crucially determined by the gatekeepers of peer review. Peer review determines what research gets funded and what research gets published” p.68 “What is called scientific knowledge is produced by a community” p. 69

Longino Longino’s MAIN CLAIM: peer review helps to overcome subjectivity and error of individual scientists

Longino PEER REVIEW “We are accustomed to thinking of science as a public possession . . . in that it is produced for the most part by public resources—either through direct funding of research through financial support of the education of scientists.” P. 69

Longino Science can be critiqued “reviewed” via Experimental details--evidential Theoretical assumptions—conceptual A. Soundness of hypothesis B. Consistency of hypothesis with accepted theory C. Relevance of evidence to hypothesis—this is the big problem for objectivity

Longino Peer review—reviewers ask questions & offer criticism, scientist responds, and reviewer responds back—this builds a better work—CRITICISM IS TRANSFORMATIVE This review system—a dialogue—is not perfect—reviewers have bias too BUT science is objective to extent that scientific communities are transformative

Longino CRITERIA FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PROCESS 1. RECOGNIZED AVENUES OF CRITICISM Journals, conferences, blind review, etc. 2. SHARED STANDARDS Here are the traditional standards of the scientific method such as explanatory power, consistency, reliability, verifiability

Longino CRITERIA FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PROCESS 3. COMMUNITY RESPONSE Evidence that the peer community can and does change “in response to dialogues within—measured by: • Textbook changes • Distribution of grants and awards • Changes in world views—not so easy to measure? 4. EQUALITY OF INTELLECTUAL AUTHORITY Political power should not rule science—marginalized such as women and minorities should be included in the community

Longino LIMITS TO REVIEW •Criticism cannot go on indefinitely or nothing worthwhile would be done for society—(world views can be critiqued forever) Criticism going in circles repeatedly Criticism that does not lead to further research •Agendas like career advancement can get in the way of good research and review standards •When no one in community sees background assumptions that they all share

Longino Problem w/ Longino’s view— In 1965 govt. funding of Research was 60% Government funding for medical research-- 36% in the U.S. A 2005 study in Nature surveyed 3247 publicly funded US researchers (by NIH). 15.5% admitted to altering design, methodology or results of their studies due to pressure of an external funding source.

Longino Problem w/ Longino’s view— In a contemporary study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 15% of the 107 medical research institutions questioned were willing to allow pharmaceutical companies sponsoring research to alter manuscripts according to their interests before they were submitted for publication.