ABSTRACT
In contemporary society, students depend heavily on scientific research to help make decisions and address challenges. Unfortunately, their society is often deeply torn over the science that is supposed to address theoretical and practical issues. One approach for distinguishing appropriate and inappropriate influences of values on science is to distinguish epistemic values from non-epistemic values. Those who aim to draw a distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic values typically do so because they think the distinction is important for promoting the goals of science. One of the most important reasons for thinking that non-epistemic values can play a legitimate role in scientific reasoning is the argument from inductive risk. The argument from inductive risk focuses on a specific role that non-epistemic values can play in science, namely, determining how much evidence to demand when making scientific decisions. This chapter examines five major questions that have been debated by scholars seeking to clarify how values should influence science.
