In defence of the value free ideal

EuroJnlPhilScitainties fully explicit and avoiding substantial inductive risks. 29 This is not to saythat the framework provided by the IPCC is perfect and flawless. In addition, I’mnot claiming here that the actual IPCC assessment reports consistently implement theGuidance Note and articulate uncertainties in a flawless way. But even if the guidingframework and the actual practice might be improved upon, the IPCC examplenonetheless shows forcefully how scientists can articulate results as a function of thecurrent state of understanding and thereby avoid arbitrary (methodological) choices.This effectively defeats the methodological critique of the value free ideal. 306ConclusionThe methodological critique of the value free ideal is ill-founded. In a nutshell, thepaper argues that there is a class of scientific statements which can be considered—for all practical purposes—as established beyond reasonable doubt. Results to theeffect that, e.g., dinosaurs once inhabited the earth, alcohol freezes if sufficientlycooled, or methane is a greenhouse gas are not associated with decision makingrelevant uncertainties. Frequently, of course, empirical evidence is insufficient toestablish hypotheses equally firmly. But rather than reporting uncertain results, andmanaging the ensuing inductive risks, scientific policy advice may set forth hedgedhypotheses that fully make explicit the lack of understanding. By sufficiently weakeningthe reported results, it is always possible that scientific policy advice onlycommunicates virtually certain (hedged) findings. That’s what the methodologicalcritique of the value free ideal seems to underestimate.29 One may raise the question whether, by recommending use of expert judgement and surveys of expertviews, the Guidance Note in fact tolerates non-epistemic value judgements and represents, accordingly, acounterexample to this paper’s line of thought. The relation between expert judgements and non-epistemicvalue judgements is intriguing and clearly deserves closer attention. At this point, however, we have to becontent with the following brief remarks: First of all, the Guidance Note prescribes to use expert surveys inorder to gauge the degree of agreement within the scientific community (cf. Mastrandea et al. 2010, pp. 2–3), e.g. with a view to probability estimates. Such surveys hence represent one way to make the prevailinguncertainties explicit, fully in line with this paper. Secondly, I take it that to infer a hypothesis from expertjudgement is not necessarily more uncertain than a well-founded inference from empirical evidence: Incases where we know that experts have acquired tacit knowledge and where many experts agree, expertjudgement, too, can establish a hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt. Finally, whenever these conditionsaren’t met, i.e. whenever expert judgement doesn’t establish a hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt, theGuidance Note (in my understanding) recommends to switch the category, e.g.: if experts don’t agree on arange of a variable (category D), one should attempt to provide an order of magnitude (category C) ratherthan reporting an uncertain and poorly founded quantitative range; if experts don’t agree on a probabilityof variable (category E), they should try to estimate a range of possible values for that variable withoutassigning probabilities. So, on the one hand, the Guidance Note can be interpreted in a way such that itremains an example for how to eliminate non-epistemic value judgements, although it relies on expertviews. On the other hand, the unspecific reference to expert judgements in the Guidance Note leaves roomfor different interpretations. Note, however, that this brief case study does not hinge on the Guidance Notebeing perfect or flawless in every single aspect, for it illustrates in any case the general methodologicalstrategy of removing policy-relevant inductive risks through making uncertainties explicit.30 The Guidance Note, by the way, endorses that ideal explicitly (cf. Mastrandea et al. 2010, p.2).