lauantaina 05. syyskuuta 2015, 12.00. Seminaarinmäki, Vanha juhlasali, S212, Jyväskylän yliopisto
YTM Saana Jukolan filosofian väitöskirjan ”On the conditions for objectivity: How to avoid bias in socially relevant research” tarkastustilaisuus. Vastaväittäjänä PhD, apulaisprofessori Endla Lohkivi (Tarton yliopisto) ja kustoksena akatemiatutkija Miira Tuominen (Jyväskylän yliopisto). Väitöstilaisuus on englanninkielinen.
Mitä lääketieteellisen tutkimuksen, ravitsemustieteen tai ilmastotieteen objektiivisuus oikeastaan on ja mitkä ovat sen saavuttamisen ehdot? Näitä kysymyksiä Jukola tarkastelee tieteenfilosofian alan väitöskirjassaan.
The present study focuses on the conditions required for ensuring objectivity in those fields of scientific research that are expected to produce socially relevant outcomes. It is comprised of four individual articles and an introductory chapter. The introductory chapter begins with a discussion on the concept of ‘objectivity’. A short introduction to the history of the concept is given, the complexity of its current use is explained, and the connection between the objectivity of research and public trust in science is indicated. Next, the theoretical background of the dissertation is articulated: 1) criticism of individualistic views on objectivity of science, 2) criticism of value-freedom of science, and 3) acknowledgement of the importance of the context of scientific inquiry. The introductory chapter ends with an overview of the individual articles and a discussion on the implications of this study. The first article examines the conditions for objectivity in the context of commercialized research. A traditional, individualistic conception of the objectivity of science is criticized, and it is argued that certain features of commercialized research culture are epistemically harmful. The second article focuses on Helen Longino’s (1990; 2002) theory on the objectivity of science. The focus is on the criteria Longino offers as tools for evaluating research communities. By introducing two cases in biomedical sciences, it is argued that her theory can be complemented by taking notice of extra-scientific factors. In the third article, different ideals of objectivity are discussed in the context of medical research and conducting meta-analyses in particular. With criticism of an article by Stegenga (2011), the article demonstrates that the so-called procedural ideal of objectivity does not manage to capture some of the most central features of medical knowledge production. A case of research on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors is introduced, and it is argued that adopting the so-called social view on objectivity can help us to better evaluate medical science. The fourth article examines journal peer review and the effects of different individual-level biases from a social-epistemological perspective. It is argued that the institutional context of peer review can have a significant effect on how biases influence the pool of published literature.
Keywords: philosophy of science, objectivity, social epistemology, bias, Helen Longino