Difference between revisions of "Resource:Fa27f5f7-b2cd-43b3-83df-892fc20d948b"
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=That's not science! the role of moral philosophy in the science/ non-science divide | |Title=That's not science! the role of moral philosophy in the science/ non-science divide | ||
| − | |Is About=. | + | |Is About=This paper investigates whether recent cases of fraud in science can shed light on the distinction. First, it investigates whether there is an absolute distinction between science and non-science with respect to fraud, and in particular with regards to manipulation and fabrication of data. Finding that it is very hard to make such a distinction leads to the second step: scrutinizing whether there is a normative distinction between science and non-science. This is done by investigating one of the recent internationally famous frauds in science, the Sudbø case. This case demonstrates that moral norms are not only needed to regulate science because of its special characteristics, such as its potential for harm, but moral norms give science its special characteristics<ref>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11017-007-9035-z</ref>. |
| − | |Important Because=. | + | <references /> |
| + | |Important Because=Moral norms are crucial in differentiating science from non-science. Although this does not mean that ethics can save the life of science, it can play a significant role in its resuscitation<ref>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11017-007-9035-z</ref>. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Journal | ||
| + | |||
| + | Factual | ||
| + | <references /> | ||
|Important For=Researchers | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 16:25, 29 April 2020
ResourcesThat's not science! the role of moral philosophy in the science/ non-science divide
What is this about?
This paper investigates whether recent cases of fraud in science can shed light on the distinction. First, it investigates whether there is an absolute distinction between science and non-science with respect to fraud, and in particular with regards to manipulation and fabrication of data. Finding that it is very hard to make such a distinction leads to the second step: scrutinizing whether there is a normative distinction between science and non-science. This is done by investigating one of the recent internationally famous frauds in science, the Sudbø case. This case demonstrates that moral norms are not only needed to regulate science because of its special characteristics, such as its potential for harm, but moral norms give science its special characteristics[1].
Why is this important?
Moral norms are crucial in differentiating science from non-science. Although this does not mean that ethics can save the life of science, it can play a significant role in its resuscitation[1].
Journal
Factual
