Critique Of The Ideal Of Value-free Science

The relationship between science and value has always been one of the main issues discussed in the field of philosophy.The research on this issue has gradually formed two opposing views: the Value-Free Ideal of Science and the Value-load Ideal of science.The Value-Free Ideal of Science has continuously exposed various problems in influencing scientific research and social life,causing reflection in western society,which has been widely questioned and strongly criticized.The critique of the Value-load Ideal of Science mainly focuses on three aspects: first,the subjectivity of scientific research;Second,the uncertainty of science;Third,the boundary between cognitive value and non-cognitive value.Heather E.Douglas,an associate professor in the philosophy department at Michigan State University,standing on the shoulders of predecessors,rationally criticized the concept of scientific value irrelevant from three aspects.One is the problem of cognitive value and non-cognitive value;The second is moral responsibility and scientific autonomy.Third,the objectivity of science.Rejecting the idea that the value of science has nothing to do with it,we need to invoke a new idea to help philosophers guide the value of science to play an appropriate role.In order to ensure the objectivity and autonomy of science,she strictly limits and explains the use of the two functions in the whole process of scientific research,and puts forward her own Value-load Ideal of Science.Douglas’ s Value-load Ideal of Science is quite different from the Modern Western Value-Free Ideal of Science in value types,value roles and requirements on scientists’ responsibilities.At the same time,Douglas’ s Value-load Ideal of Science also has some difficulties in evaluating the work of scientists.