Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Although many philosophers have employed the distinction between “direct” and “indirect” roles for values in science, I argue that it merits further clarification. The distinction can be formulated in several ways: as a logical point, as a distinction between epistemic attitudes, or as a clarification of different consequences associated with accepting scientific claims. Moreover, it can serve either as part of a normative ideal or as a tool for policing how values influence science. While various formulations of the distinction may (with further clarification) contribute to a normative ideal, they have limited effectiveness for regulating how values influence science.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kevin C. Elliott (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: