Epistemic Honesty

  • Raymond Dacey
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 236)


The paper address two issues. The first involves the determination of the conditions under which an individual will honestly or dishonestly acquire and reveal scientific information. The second involves the determination of the conditions under which an individual will publicly reveal an instance of scientific dishonesty. In addressing both issues I examine the rational and ethical components of professional scientific behavior. I shall refer to the honest conduct of research and the truthful publication of scientific findings as epistemic honesty, and to the public revelation of epistemic dishonesty as whistle-blowing. Then the two issues I will address can be stated as questions, as follows: Why is a scientist epistemically honest? Why does an individual blow the whistle?


Decision Theory Deontic Logic Fourteenth Century Scientific Misconduct Payoff Table 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Balch, M. and Fishbum, P. C.: 1973, ‘Subjective Expected Utility for Conditional Primitives’, in Balch, M., D. McFadden, and S. Wu (eds.), Essays on Economic Behavior Under Uncertainty, North-Holland, pp. 57–69.Google Scholar
  2. Battalio, R. C., Kagel, J. H., and Jiranyakul, K.: 1990, ‘Testing Between Alternative Models of Choice Under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 3, 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Battalio, R. C., Kagel, J. H., and MacDonald, D. N.: 1985, ‘Animals’ Choices Over Uncertain Outcomes: Some Initial Experimental Results’, American Economic Review 75, 597–613.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, G.: 1968, ‘Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach’, Journal of Political Economy 78, 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blais, M.: 1990, ‘Misunderstandings of Epistemic TIT FOR TAT: Reply to John Woods’, Journal of Philosophy 87, 369–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biais, M.: 1987, “Epistemic TIT FOR TAT’, Journal of Philosophy 84, 363–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Block, M. K. and Heineke, J. M.: 1975, ‘A Labor Theoretic Analysis of the Criminal Choice’, American Economic Review 65, 314–25.Google Scholar
  8. Camerer, C. F.: 1989, ‘An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 61–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castafieda, H.: 1981, ‘The Paradoxes of Deontic Logic: The Simplest Solution to All of Them in One Fell Swoop’, in R. Hilpinen (ed.), New Studies in Deontic Logic, Reidel, pp. 37–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chisholm, R. M.: 1963, ‘Contrary-to-Duty Imperatives and Deontic Logic’, Analysis 24, 33–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dacey, R.: 1981, ‘An Interrogative Account of the Dialectical Inquiring System Based Upon the Economic Theory of Information’, Synthese 47, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ehrlich, I.: 1973, ‘Participation in Illegitimate Activities: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation’, Journal of Political Economy 81, 521–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehrlich, I. and Becker, G.: 1972, ‘Market Insurance, Self-Insurance, and Self-Protection’, Journal of Political Economy 80, 623–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fishburn, P. and Kochenberger, G.: 1979, ‘Two-Piece von Neumann-Morgenstern Utility Functions’, Decision Sciences 10, 503–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fçllesdal, D. and Hilpinen, R.: 1971, ‘Deontic Logic: An Introduction’, in R. Hilpinen (ed.), Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, Reidel, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
  16. Friedman, M. and Savage, L. J.: 1948, ‘The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk’, Journal of Political Economy 56, 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glazer, M. P. and Glazer, P. M.: 1989, The Whistleblowers,Basic Books.Google Scholar
  18. Hardwig, J.: 1991, ‘The Role of Trust in Knowledge’, Journal of Philosophy 88, 693–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hardwig, J.: 1985, ‘Epistemic Dependence’, Journal of Philosophy 82, 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hilts, P. J.: 1991, ‘Hero in Exposing Science Hoax Paid Dearly’, New York Times, March 22, pp. Al, A13.Google Scholar
  21. Hintikka, J.: 1971, ‘Some Main Problems of Deontic Logic’, in R. Hilpinen (ed.), Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, Reidel, pp. 59–104.Google Scholar
  22. Jeffrey, R. C.: 1983, The Logic of Decision,second edition, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kagel, J. H., MacDonald, D. N., and Battalio, R. C.: 1990, ‘Tests of ’Fanning Out’ of Indifference Curves: Results From Animal and Human Experiments’, American Economic Review 80, 912–21.Google Scholar
  24. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A.: 1979, ‘Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk’, Econometrica 47, 263–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knuuttila, S.: 1981, ‘The Emergence of Deontic Logic in the Fourteenth Century’, in R. Hilpinen (ed.), New Studies in Deontic Logic, Reidel, pp. 225–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. LaPidus, J. B. and Mishkin, B.: 1990, ‘Values and Ethics in the Graduate Education of Scientists’, in W. May (ed.), Ethics and Higher Education, Macmillan, pp. 283–98.Google Scholar
  27. Luce, R. D. and Krantz, D. H.: 1971, ‘Conditional Expected Utility’, Econometrica 39, 253–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Neilson, W. S.: 1991, ‘An Expected Utility-User’s Guide to Nonexpected Utility Experiments’, Texas AandM University Economics Working Paper (#91–17).Google Scholar
  29. Neumann, J. von and Morgenstern, O.: 1947, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, second edition, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Posner, R. A.: 1980, ‘Retribution and Related Concepts of Punishment’, Journal of Legal Studies 9, 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Prior, A. N. 1954, ‘The Paradoxes of Derived Obligation’, Mind 63, 64–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Savage, L. J.: 1954, The Foundations of Statistics,Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D.: 1992, ‘Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,’ Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. von Wright, G. H.: 1971, ‘A New System of Deontic Logic’, in R. Hilpinen (ed.), Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, Reidel, pp. 105–20.Google Scholar
  35. von Wright, G. H.: 1951, ‘Deontic Logic’, Mind 60, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Woods, J.: 1989, ‘The Maladroitness of Epistemic TIT FOR TAT’, Journal of Philosophy 86, 324–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raymond Dacey
    • 1
  1. 1.University of IdahoUSA

Personalised recommendations