Difference between revisions of "Resource:Fa27f5f7-b2cd-43b3-83df-892fc20d948b"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
| − | |Title=That's | + | |Title=That's Not Science! The Role of Moral Philosophy in the Science/ Non-Science Divide |
| − | |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> | + | |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>Hofmann, Bjørn. "That’s not science! The role of moral philosophy in the science/non-science divide." ''Theoretical medicine and bioethics'' 28.3 (2007): 243-256.</ref>. This is a factual case. |
<references /> | <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> | + | |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>Hofmann, Bjørn. "That’s not science! The role of moral philosophy in the science/non-science divide." ''Theoretical medicine and bioethics'' 28.3 (2007): 243-256.</ref>. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
|Important For=Researchers | |Important For=Researchers | ||
| Line 16: | Line 11: | ||
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11017-007-9035-z | |Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11017-007-9035-z | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
|Involves=Jon Sudbø | |Involves=Jon Sudbø | ||
Revision as of 21:16, 26 May 2020
ResourcesCases
That'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]. This is a factual case.
- ↑ Hofmann, Bjørn. "That’s not science! The role of moral philosophy in the science/non-science divide." Theoretical medicine and bioethics 28.3 (2007): 243-256.
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].
- ↑ Hofmann, Bjørn. "That’s not science! The role of moral philosophy in the science/non-science divide." Theoretical medicine and bioethics 28.3 (2007): 243-256.
