A Novel Account of Scientific Anomaly

Help for the Dispute over Low-Dose Biochemical Effects

Bibliographic Data

ID10705019
AuthorsKevin C Elliott (0000-0003-3397-7849, University of South Carolina, corresponding author)
Year2006
Volume73
Issue5
Pages790-802
Publication date2006-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePhilosophy of Science (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0031-8248 • E-ISSN: 1539-767X
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1086/518636
OpenAlexW1488278301
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited25

The biological effects of low doses of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals are currently a matter of significant scientific controversy. This paper argues that philosophers of science can contribute to alleviating this controversy by examining it with the aid of a novel account of scientific anomaly. Specifically, analysis of contemporary research on chemical hormesis (i.e., alleged beneficial biological effects produced by low doses of substances that are harmful at higher doses) suggests that scientists may initially describe anomalous phenomena in terms of multiple distinct “characterizations,” each of which is compatible with current empirical evidence. By focusing attention on this feature of scientific anomalies, philosophers of science can alleviate the controversy over low-dose chemical effects in at least two ways: (1) they can pinpoint the significant ways in which particular characterizations frame the controversy, and (2) they can identify the methodological value judgments at stake in researchers’ choice of characterizations

Anomaly (physics) · Biology · Economics · Epistemology · Frame (networking) · Hormesis · Physics · Positive economics · Quantum mechanics · Scientific evidence · Value (mathematics) · Computer Science · Medicine · Philosophy · Philosophy and History of Science · Toxicology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub