哲学偏见是科学无法回避的一种偏见。
Philosophical bias is the one bias that science cannot avoid.
机构信息
NMBU Centre for Applied Philosophy of Science, School of Economics and Business, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Aas, Norway.
Faculty of Health and Welfare, Østfold University College, Halden, Norway.
出版信息
Elife. 2019 Mar 13;8:e44929. doi: 10.7554/eLife.44929.
Abstract
Scientists seek to eliminate all forms of bias from their research. However, all scientists also make assumptions of a non-empirical nature about topics such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research. Here, we argue that since these 'philosophical biases' cannot be avoided, they need to be debated critically by scientists and philosophers of science.
摘要
科学家们试图消除其研究中的所有形式的偏见。然而，科学家在进行研究时，也会对因果关系、决定论和还原论等非经验性主题做出假设。在这里，我们认为，由于这些“哲学偏见”无法避免，因此需要由科学家和科学哲学家进行批判性地辩论。
相似文献
1
Philosophical bias is the one bias that science cannot avoid.哲学偏见是科学无法回避的一种偏见。
Elife. 2019 Mar 13;8:e44929. doi: 10.7554/eLife.44929.
2
What concept analysis in philosophy of science should be (and why competing philosophical analyses of gene concepts cannot be tested by polling scientists).科学哲学中的概念分析应该是什么（以及为什么基因概念的相互竞争的哲学分析不能通过对科学家进行民意调查来检验）。
Hist Philos Life Sci. 2004;26(1):29-58. doi: 10.1080/03919710412331341631.
3
Philosophical aesthetics and cognitive science.哲学美学与认知科学。
Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2018 Jan;9(1). doi: 10.1002/wcs.1445. Epub 2017 Jun 22.
4
Addiction and its sciences-philosophy.成瘾及其科学-哲学。
Addiction. 2011 Jan;106(1):25-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03158.x. Epub 2010 Oct 19.
5
The borderlands between science and philosophy: an introduction.科学与哲学的边缘地带：导论
Q Rev Biol. 2008 Mar;83(1):7-15. doi: 10.1086/529558.
6
The use of Husserl's phenomenology in nursing research: A discussion paper. Husserl 现象学在护理研究中的应用：讨论文件。
J Adv Nurs. 2023 Aug;79(8):3160-3169. doi: 10.1111/jan.15564. Epub 2023 Jan 31.
7
Checks and balances: the welcomed tension between philosophy and science.制衡：哲学与科学之间令人欣喜的张力。
Q Rev Biol. 2008 Mar;83(1):17-28. doi: 10.1086/529559.
8
A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists.自然科学家理解社会科学研究指南。
Conserv Biol. 2014 Oct;28(5):1167-77. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12326. Epub 2014 Jun 24.
9
Philosophy and the front line of science.哲学与科学前沿
Q Rev Biol. 2008 Mar;83(1):29-36. doi: 10.1086/529560.
10
Naturalizing phenomenology - A philosophical imperative.使现象学自然化——一项哲学要务。
Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2015 Dec;119(3):661-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2015.08.005. Epub 2015 Aug 10.
引用本文的文献
1
The Role of Faculty in Cultivating Thriving Campus STEM Ecosystems.教师在培育繁荣的校园STEM生态系统中的作用。
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2025 Jun 1;24(2):es3. doi: 10.1187/cbe.24-02-0041.
2
From Efficacy to Effectiveness: Evaluating Psychedelic Randomized Controlled Trials for Trustworthy Evidence-Based Policy and Practice.从疗效到效果：评估迷幻药随机对照试验以获取可靠的循证政策与实践依据
Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2025 Apr;13(2):e70097. doi: 10.1002/prp2.70097.
3
Recommendations to promote fairness and inclusion in biomedical AI research and clinical use.促进生物医学人工智能研究和临床应用公平性和包容性的建议。
J Biomed Inform. 2024 Sep;157:104693. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104693. Epub 2024 Jul 15.
4
Psychedelic skepticism: back to the sixties?对迷幻药的怀疑态度：回到六十年代？
Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. 2024 Apr 25;14:20451253241243242. doi: 10.1177/20451253241243242. eCollection 2024.
5
Conceptual competence in psychiatric training: building a culture of conceptual inquiry.精神科培训中的概念能力：构建概念探究的文化。
BJPsych Bull. 2024 Apr 2;49(2):1-6. doi: 10.1192/bjb.2024.12.
6
Beyond Kuhnian paradigms: Normal science and theory dependence in ecology.超越库恩范式：生态学中的常规科学与理论依赖性
Ecol Evol. 2023 Jul 4;13(7):e10255. doi: 10.1002/ece3.10255. eCollection 2023 Jul.
7
Ascribing Sentience: Evidential and Ethical Considerations in Policymaking.赋予感知能力：政策制定中的证据与伦理考量
Animals (Basel). 2022 Jul 25;12(15):1893. doi: 10.3390/ani12151893.
8
Reply to Moretti et al. Would Moving Forward Mean Going Back? Comment on "Maselli et al. Direct Access to Physical Therapy: Should Italy Move Forward? 2022, , 555".回复 Moretti 等人：向前推进是否意味着倒退？评“Maselli 等人：物理治疗的直接通道：意大利是否应该向前推进？2022 年，……，555”。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Apr 12;19(8):4620. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19084620.
9
Towards epistemic justice in nursing research in China: Time for Chinese nursing scholars to actively engage with philosophical inquiries.迈向中国护理研究中的认知公正：中国护理学者积极参与哲学探究的时候到了。
Int J Nurs Sci. 2021 Jul 14;8(4):486-488. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnss.2021.07.001. eCollection 2021 Oct 10.
10
Towards Solving Health Inequities: A Method to Identify Ideological Operation in Global Health Programs.迈向解决健康不平等：一种识别全球卫生计划中意识形态运作的方法。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Apr 21;18(9):4393. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18094393.
本文引用的文献
1
From Ideal to Real Risk: Philosophy of Causation Meets Risk Analysis.从理想风险到实际风险：因果关系哲学与风险分析的交汇
Risk Anal. 2019 Mar;39(3):729-740. doi: 10.1111/risa.13187. Epub 2018 Sep 19.
2
Treating real people: Science and humanity.治疗真实的人：科学与人性。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2018 Oct;24(5):919-929. doi: 10.1111/jep.13024. Epub 2018 Aug 30.
3
Meta-research: Why research on research matters.元研究：为何研究研究很重要。
PLoS Biol. 2018 Mar 13;16(3):e2005468. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468. eCollection 2018 Mar.
4
How biological background assumptions influence scientific risk evaluation of stacked genetically modified plants: an analysis of research hypotheses and argumentations.生物学背景假设如何影响转基因叠加植物的科学风险评估：研究假设与论证分析
Life Sci Soc Policy. 2017 Aug 14;13(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s40504-017-0057-7.
5
Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement.体内研究报告中的偏倚风险：改进重点
PLoS Biol. 2015 Oct 13;13(10):e1002273. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273. eCollection 2015 Oct.
6
Epistemological depth in a GM crops controversy.转基因作物争议中的认识论深度。
Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2015 Apr;50:1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.02.002. Epub 2015 Mar 11.
7
Causal assessment of pharmaceutical treatments: why standards of evidence should not be the same for benefits and harms?药物治疗的因果评估：为何获益与危害的证据标准不应相同？
Drug Saf. 2015 Jan;38(1):1-11. doi: 10.1007/s40264-014-0249-5.
8
Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis?循证医学：一场危机中的运动？
BMJ. 2014 Jun 13;348:g3725. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3725.
9
Acetaminophen use: a risk for asthma?对乙酰氨基酚的使用：会引发哮喘吗？
Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2009 Mar;9(2):164-7. doi: 10.1007/s11882-009-0024-3.
10
Why most published research findings are false.为何大多数已发表的研究结果是错误的。
PLoS Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. Epub 2005 Aug 30.
Zotero 插件