References
- Almassi, B. 2009. Trust in expert testimony: Eddington's 1919 eclipse expedition and the British response to general relativity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 40(1), 57–67 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2008.08.003
- Baehr, J. 2011. The Inquiring Mind: On Intellectual Virtues and Virtue Epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Bar-Haim, Y., D. Lamy, L. Pergamin, M. J. Bakermans-Kranenburg, and M. H. Van Ijzendoorn. 2007. “Threat-related Attentional Bias in Anxious and Nonanxious Individuals: A Meta-analytic Study.” Psychological Bulletin 133 (1): 1. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.1.
- Baron, J. 2000. Thinking and Deciding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Bechara, A., and A. R. Damasio. 2005. “The Somatic Marker Hypothesis: A Neural Theory of Economic Decision.” Games and Economic Behavior 52 (2): 336–372.
- Biddle, J. 2013. “State of the Field: Transient Underdetermination and Values in Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (1): 124–133.
- Brown, M. J. 2013. “Values in Science beyond Underdetermination and Inductive Risk.” Philosophy of Science 80 (5): 829–839.
- Chalmers, A. F. 2013. What Is This Thing Called Science? Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
- Chambers, C. 2019. “What’s Next for Registered Reports?” Nature 573: 187–189. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02674-6.
- Clifford, W. 1877. “The Ethics of Belief.” Contemporary Review 29: 289–309.
- Collins, H. M., and T. Pinch. 2012. The Golem: What You Should Know about Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Cushing, J. T. 1993. “Underdetermination, Conventionalism and Realism: The Copenhagen vs. The Bohm Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.” In Correspondence, Invariance and Heuristics, edited by S. French and H. Kamminga, 261–278. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Del Vicario, M., A. Scala, G. Caldarelli, H. E. Stanley, and W. Quattrociocchi. 2017. “Modeling Confirmation Bias and Polarization.” Scientific Reports 7: 40391. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40391.
- Douglas, H. 2000. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 67 (4): 559–579. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/392855.
- Douglas, H. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
- Douglas, H. 2013. “The Value of Cognitive Values.” Philosophy of Science 80 (5): 796–806. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/673716.
- Douglas, H. 2017. “Why Inductive Risk Requires Values in Science.” In Current Controversies in Values and Science, edited by E. Kevin and D. Steel, 81–93. London: Routledge.
- Ekmekci, P. E. 2017. “An Increasing Problem in Publication Ethics: Publication Bias and Editors’ Role in Avoiding It.” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 20 (2): 171–178. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9767-0.
- Epstein, S. 1994. “Integration of the Cognitive and the Psychodynamic Unconscious.” American Psychologist 49 (8): 709. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.8.709.
- Feenberg, A. 1995. Alternative Modernity: The Technical Turn in Philosophy and Social Theory. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
- Feenberg, A. 2010. Between Reason and Experience: Essays in Technology and Modernity. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Fischhoff, B. 1977. “Perceived Informativeness of Facts.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 3 (2): 349.
- Fischhoff, B., S. Lichtenstein, and S. L. Derby. 1983. Acceptable Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Gillies, D. 1993. Philosophy of Science in the Twentieth Century: Four Central Themes. Cambridge: Blackwell.
- Henkel, L. A., and M. Mather. 2007. “Memory Attributions for Choices: How Beliefs Shape Our Memories.” Journal of Memory and Language 57 (2): 163–176. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.012.
- Hertel, P. T., and A. Mathews. 2011. “Cognitive Bias Modification: Past Perspectives, Current Findings, and Future Applications.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 6 (6): 521–536. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611421205.
- Hofmann, B. 2018. “Fake Facts and Alternative Truths in Medical Research.” BMC Medical Ethics 19 (1): 4. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0243-z.
- Hofmann, B. 2019. “Biases and Imperatives in Handling Medical Technology.” Health Policy and Technology 8 (4): 377–385. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2019.10.005.
- Hunter, J. E., and F. L. Schmidt. 2004. Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Newbury Park: Sage.
- Ioannidis, J. P. 2005. “Why Most Published Research Findings are False.” PLoS Medicine 2 (8): e124. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
- Kafaee, M. 2019. “Technological Enthusiasm: Morally Commendable or Reprehensible?” Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (2): 969–980. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00157-5.
- Kahneman, D. 2003. “A Perspective on Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality.” American Psychologist 58 (9): 697. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697.
- Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: MacMillan.
- Korteling, J. E., A. M. Brouwer, and A. Toet. 2018. “A Neural Network Framework for Cognitive Bias.” Frontiers in Psychology 9. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01561.
- Kuhn, T. S. 1977. “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice.” In The Essential Tension, Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, edited by T. S. Kuhn, 320–339. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Kuhn, T. S. 1983. “Rationality and Theory Choice.” The Journal of Philosophy 80 (10): 563–570. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2026150.
- Kuhn, T. S. 2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
- Ladyman, J. 2012. Understanding Philosophy of Science. London: Routledge.
- Laudan, L. 2004. “The Epistemic, the Cognitive, and the Social.” In Science, Values, and Objectivity: edited by P. Machamer and G.Wolters, 14–23.
- Lind, M., M. Visentini, T. Mäntylä, and F. Del Missier. 2017. “Choice-supportive Misremembering: A New Taxonomy and Review.” Frontiers in Psychology 8: 2062. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02062.
- Longino, H. E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Longino, H. E. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Lövdén, M. 2003. “The Episodic Memory and Inhibition Accounts of Age-related Increases in False Memories: A Consistency Check.” Journal of Memory and Language 49 (2): 268–283. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00069-X.
- Mather, M., E. Shafir, and M. K. Johnson. 2003. “Remembering Chosen and Assigned Options.” Memory & Cognition 31 (3): 422–433.
- Mather, M., and M. K. Johnson. 2000. “Choice-supportive Source Monitoring: Do Our Decisions Seem Better to Us as We Age?” Psychology and Aging 15 (4): 596.
- Mohanani, R., I. Salman, B. Turhan, P. Rodríguez, and P. Ralph. 2018. “Cognitive Biases in Software Engineering: A Systematic Mapping Study.” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering24, 1727–1761.
- National Academy of Sciences. 2009. On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research. Washington: National Academies Press (US).
- Nelius, T., M. Doellken, C. Zimmerer, and S. Matthiesen. 2020. “The Impact of Confirmation Bias on Reasoning and Visual Attention during Analysis in Engineering Design: An Eye Tracking Study.” Design Studies 71: 100963. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2020.100963.
- Newton-Smith, W. H. 2000. “Underdetermination of Theory by Data.” In A Companion to the Philosophy of Science, edited by W. H. Newton-Smith, 532–536. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
- Nikander, J. B., L. A. Liikkanen, and M. Laakso. 2014. “The Preference Effect in Design Concept Evaluation.” Design Studies 35 (5): 473–499. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.02.006.
- Nosek, B. A., C. R. Ebersole, A. DeHaven, and D. M. Mellor. 2018. “The Preregistration Revolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 115: 2600–2606. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114.
- Nuzzo, R. 2015. “How Scientists Fool Themselves–and How They Can Stop.” Nature News 526 (7572): 182.
- Okasha, S. 2015. “On Arrow’s Theorem and Scientific Rationality: Reply to Morreau and Stegenga.” Mind 124 (493): 279–294.
- Ploug, T., and S. Holm. 2015. “Conflict of Interest Disclosure and the Polarisation of Scientific Communities.” Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (4): 356–358. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102114.
- Plous, S. 1993. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. New York: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
- Popper, K. 2014. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.
- Resnik, D. B. 2005. The Ethics of Science. An Introduction. London: Routledge.
- Resnik, D. B. 2007. The Price of Truth: How Money Affects the Norms of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Shamoo, A. E., and D. B. Resnik. 2015. Responsible Conduct of Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Sloman, S. A. 1996. “The Empirical Case for Two Systems of Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 119 (1): 3. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3.
- Stanovich, K. E., and R. F. West. 2000. “Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5): 645–665.
- Stengers, I. 2018. Another Science Is Possible: A Manifesto for Slow Science (S. Muecke, Trans.). London: Polity.
- Stove, D. C. 1982. Popper and After: Four Modern Irrationalists. Oxford: Pergamon Press
- Todt, O., and J. L. Luján. 2014. “Values and Decisions: Cognitive and Noncognitive Values in Knowledge Generation and Decision Making.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 39 (5): 720–743. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243914521019.
- Van de Poel, I., and L. Royakkers. 2011. Ethics, Technology, and Engineering: An Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Walker, J. S. 2000. Permissible Dose: A History of Radiation Protection in the Twentieth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Zagzebski, L. T. 1996. Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.