Jaggar argues that it is possible for scientists to cast aside their emotions and value judgments, and to perform their work completely dispassionately.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Question restatement: Jaggar argues that it is possible for scientists to cast aside their emotions and value judgments, and to perform their work completely dispassionately.
Option 1: True. This claim suggests that scientists can completely separate feelings and subjective values from their work. In practice, this is controversial because researchers’ choices about what to study, which hypotheses to pursue, how to interpret data, and which standards of evidence to apply are often influenced by personal, cultural, and social factors. Emotions and values can shape which questions seem important, which methods are considered appropriate, and how results are framed or prioritized. Proponents of objectivity acknowledge striving for impartiality but also recognize that complete detachment is difficult if not impossible due to cognitive biases, social context, and normative commitments within a field. Therefore, stating that scientists can perform work completely dispassionately is implausible in light of these influences.
Option 2: False. This statement explicitly denies the possibility of true dispassion in science, aligning with the view I just described: scientists’ work is entangled with emotions, biases, and value judgments. It is widely argued in philosophy of science and science studies that objectivity is an ideal to approach rather than a universal reality, and that awareness of these influences is essential to conduct sound research. Critics point to examples where funding, reputation, or theoretical commitments can steer interpretations or influence which results are promoted, which challenges the notion of pure dispassion.
Option 3: There is only one way to understand this topic: as complete detachment of emotion from scientific practice. This is an overly simplistic and inaccurate portrayal because it ignores debates about multiple dimensions of objectivity, including methodological rigor, reproducibility, transparency, and the role of social and ethical considerations in research design and interpretation.
Option 4: The claim applies only to certain psychological or emotional states, such as motivation, and not to others. This option incorrectly narrows the scope of what counts as emotion or value-laden judgment in science, and it falsely suggests that some aspects of scientific work can be fully objective while others cannot, which is not consistently supported by analyses of scientific practice.
In summary, option 1 misrepresents the feasibility of dispassionate science, option 2 aligns with the mainstream skepticism about complete detachment, option 3 oversimplifies objectivity, and option 4 unjustifiably delineates where emotions factor in. The overall discourse indicates that the idea of perfectly dispassionate science is not tenable, given the pervasiveness of non-epistemic influences in research processes.

PHIL 220-001 Jaggar Quiz

Jaggar argues that it is possible for scientists to cast aside their emotions and value judgments, and to perform their work completely dispassionately.

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Question at position 41 Karl PopperThomas KuhnDavid HumeJohn LockeMaryam Jameelah

位置1的问题 A way in which scientific questions are different than philosophical ones is that the scientific questions involve more conceptual analysis and require more than observation and experimentation for their solution.FalseTrue

Why is science correlated with systematicity, according to Bird?

According to Laplace et al., which of the following are ways in which the conceptual clarification of scientific terms provided by philosophers can improve science? (Check BOTH that apply)

Science as a “way of knowing” differs from art, religion, and philosophy in that

The Cuttler reading states the postmodernist-inductive method is the primary way scientific researchers use theories.

In this essay, Harding defends the claim that modern science is culturally-neutral, and does not have any trace of Western culture in it.

小说《三体》中“科学边界”组织致力于探讨的主要学术问题是：

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler