For most of recent history, the understanding of the scientific community was that research ought to be free from (non-epistemic) values. Increasingly, it has become consensus among philosophers of science that such a value-free idea is neither realistic, nor perhaps desirable: Philosophers argue that many choices in science are influenced by values or have value-implications. From the selection of research agendas and methods to weighing the ethical consequences of inductive errors – values permeate the scientific process, and dealing with them has become an added responsibility for any scientist, including climate impact researchers.
Integration of philosophical work into scientific practice can help policy relevant science fulfil its role more effectively and allow philosophy to improve the theories and practical recommendations to that effect. Therefore, in this two-day workshop, we brought together climate impact scientists and philosophers of science to identify the, sometimes subtle, value assumptions and value-laden choices in their research, to manage these influences in a next step.
In his opening speech, Ottmar Edenhofer highlighted the importance of value assumptions in climate science, drawing on previous work at MCC and his experience on integrating a value section in the fifth IPCC Assessment Report. His remarks were followed by three keynote lectures given by invited philosophers: Ahmad Elabbar stressed the importance to recognize and discuss value assumptions within the IPCC reports which are often hidden in concepts like carbon accounting or vulnerability. Julie Jebeile (University Bern) discussed how to deal with value laden scientific perspectives and how including cognitive and social diversity fosters the objectivity of scientific results in the climate sciences. Lastly, Matthew Brown (Southern Illinois University) presented his Moral Imagination Approach as a way of identifying values in existing, but especially developing research.
At the heart of the workshop were the case study sessions, where scientists and philosophers worked together to identify value assumptions in publications from the fields of natural climate impact sciences, climate impact attribution, climate economics, Integrated Assessment Modelling, and the science-policy interface, as a cross-section of some of the science done at PIK and beyond. We found plenty of value assumptions – some long-known and widely discussed; some obvious to scientists but overlooked by philosphers so far; some obvious to philosophers but surprising to scientists.
The workshop clarified, and underlined, three main takeaways:
- Value assumptions are present in every part of scientific publications in climate impact science: From technical choices and modeling assumptions to conceptual understandings, editorial decisions and audience considerations. Some of them can be addressed explicitly (even though they are not), while others are implicit and require a deep knowledge of scientific practices and previous scientific work. Increasing value awareness in own research is both important and fun!
- Identifying value assumptions, from a philosophical point of view, often requires detailed scientific knowledge and a deep understanding of the field's specifics, indicating a greater need for collaboration between philosophers and climate scientists, particularly concerning technical modelling assumptions. Scientists challenge philsophers’ conceptualisations and typologies, and philosophers take scientists out of their bubble of standard practice.
- There is a need for an institutionalized exchange between philosophers of science and climate scientists: Building on this initial workshop, the organizing team plans to establish a regular seminar series, addressing value issues in current and unpublished research. Additionally, the workshop paved the way for potential future publications on values in climate impact science and on the importance of detailed and informal scientific knowledge for philosophical studies on this.
We are grateful to the Geo.X Network for funding this great workshop and the many people at PIK that engaged in organizing it.
If you are interested in the topic, and want to engage more, feel free to reach out to Sabine Undorf (sabine.undorf@pik-potsdam.de) or Till Armbruster (till.armbruster@pik-potsdam.de) or check the following paper, written by some of the organizers: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01238-9
