a good thesis statement about freedom

25 Thesis Statement Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

A thesis statement is needed in an essay or dissertation . There are multiple types of thesis statements – but generally we can divide them into expository and argumentative. An expository statement is a statement of fact (common in expository essays and process essays) while an argumentative statement is a statement of opinion (common in argumentative essays and dissertations). Below are examples of each.

Strong Thesis Statement Examples

1. School Uniforms

“Mandatory school uniforms should be implemented in educational institutions as they promote a sense of equality, reduce distractions, and foster a focused and professional learning environment.”

Best For: Argumentative Essay or Debate

Read More: School Uniforms Pros and Cons

2. Nature vs Nurture

“This essay will explore how both genetic inheritance and environmental factors equally contribute to shaping human behavior and personality.”

Best For: Compare and Contrast Essay

Read More: Nature vs Nurture Debate

3. American Dream

“The American Dream, a symbol of opportunity and success, is increasingly elusive in today’s socio-economic landscape, revealing deeper inequalities in society.”

Best For: Persuasive Essay

Read More: What is the American Dream?

4. Social Media

“Social media has revolutionized communication and societal interactions, but it also presents significant challenges related to privacy, mental health, and misinformation.”

Best For: Expository Essay

Read More: The Pros and Cons of Social Media

5. Globalization

“Globalization has created a world more interconnected than ever before, yet it also amplifies economic disparities and cultural homogenization.”

Read More: Globalization Pros and Cons

6. Urbanization

“Urbanization drives economic growth and social development, but it also poses unique challenges in sustainability and quality of life.”

Read More: Learn about Urbanization

7. Immigration

“Immigration enriches receiving countries culturally and economically, outweighing any perceived social or economic burdens.”

Read More: Immigration Pros and Cons

8. Cultural Identity

“In a globalized world, maintaining distinct cultural identities is crucial for preserving cultural diversity and fostering global understanding, despite the challenges of assimilation and homogenization.”

Best For: Argumentative Essay

Read More: Learn about Cultural Identity

9. Technology

“Medical technologies in care institutions in Toronto has increased subjcetive outcomes for patients with chronic pain.”

Best For: Research Paper

10. Capitalism vs Socialism

“The debate between capitalism and socialism centers on balancing economic freedom and inequality, each presenting distinct approaches to resource distribution and social welfare.”

11. Cultural Heritage

“The preservation of cultural heritage is essential, not only for cultural identity but also for educating future generations, outweighing the arguments for modernization and commercialization.”

12. Pseudoscience

“Pseudoscience, characterized by a lack of empirical support, continues to influence public perception and decision-making, often at the expense of scientific credibility.”

Read More: Examples of Pseudoscience

13. Free Will

“The concept of free will is largely an illusion, with human behavior and decisions predominantly determined by biological and environmental factors.”

Read More: Do we have Free Will?

14. Gender Roles

“Traditional gender roles are outdated and harmful, restricting individual freedoms and perpetuating gender inequalities in modern society.”

Read More: What are Traditional Gender Roles?

15. Work-Life Ballance

“The trend to online and distance work in the 2020s led to improved subjective feelings of work-life balance but simultaneously increased self-reported loneliness.”

Read More: Work-Life Balance Examples

16. Universal Healthcare

“Universal healthcare is a fundamental human right and the most effective system for ensuring health equity and societal well-being, outweighing concerns about government involvement and costs.”

Read More: The Pros and Cons of Universal Healthcare

17. Minimum Wage

“The implementation of a fair minimum wage is vital for reducing economic inequality, yet it is often contentious due to its potential impact on businesses and employment rates.”

Read More: The Pros and Cons of Raising the Minimum Wage

18. Homework

“The homework provided throughout this semester has enabled me to achieve greater self-reflection, identify gaps in my knowledge, and reinforce those gaps through spaced repetition.”

Best For: Reflective Essay

Read More: Reasons Homework Should be Banned

19. Charter Schools

“Charter schools offer alternatives to traditional public education, promising innovation and choice but also raising questions about accountability and educational equity.”

Read More: The Pros and Cons of Charter Schools

20. Effects of the Internet

“The Internet has drastically reshaped human communication, access to information, and societal dynamics, generally with a net positive effect on society.”

Read More: The Pros and Cons of the Internet

21. Affirmative Action

“Affirmative action is essential for rectifying historical injustices and achieving true meritocracy in education and employment, contrary to claims of reverse discrimination.”

Best For: Essay

Read More: Affirmative Action Pros and Cons

22. Soft Skills

“Soft skills, such as communication and empathy, are increasingly recognized as essential for success in the modern workforce, and therefore should be a strong focus at school and university level.”

Read More: Soft Skills Examples

23. Moral Panic

“Moral panic, often fueled by media and cultural anxieties, can lead to exaggerated societal responses that sometimes overlook rational analysis and evidence.”

Read More: Moral Panic Examples

24. Freedom of the Press

“Freedom of the press is critical for democracy and informed citizenship, yet it faces challenges from censorship, media bias, and the proliferation of misinformation.”

Read More: Freedom of the Press Examples

25. Mass Media

“Mass media shapes public opinion and cultural norms, but its concentration of ownership and commercial interests raise concerns about bias and the quality of information.”

Best For: Critical Analysis

Read More: Mass Media Examples

Checklist: How to use your Thesis Statement

✅ Position: If your statement is for an argumentative or persuasive essay, or a dissertation, ensure it takes a clear stance on the topic. ✅ Specificity: It addresses a specific aspect of the topic, providing focus for the essay. ✅ Conciseness: Typically, a thesis statement is one to two sentences long. It should be concise, clear, and easily identifiable. ✅ Direction: The thesis statement guides the direction of the essay, providing a roadmap for the argument, narrative, or explanation. ✅ Evidence-based: While the thesis statement itself doesn’t include evidence, it sets up an argument that can be supported with evidence in the body of the essay. ✅ Placement: Generally, the thesis statement is placed at the end of the introduction of an essay.

Try These AI Prompts – Thesis Statement Generator!

One way to brainstorm thesis statements is to get AI to brainstorm some for you! Try this AI prompt:

💡 AI PROMPT FOR EXPOSITORY THESIS STATEMENT I am writing an essay on [TOPIC] and these are the instructions my teacher gave me: [INSTUCTIONS]. I want you to create an expository thesis statement that doesn’t argue a position, but demonstrates depth of knowledge about the topic.

💡 AI PROMPT FOR ARGUMENTATIVE THESIS STATEMENT I am writing an essay on [TOPIC] and these are the instructions my teacher gave me: [INSTRUCTIONS]. I want you to create an argumentative thesis statement that clearly takes a position on this issue.

💡 AI PROMPT FOR COMPARE AND CONTRAST THESIS STATEMENT I am writing a compare and contrast essay that compares [Concept 1] and [Concept2]. Give me 5 potential single-sentence thesis statements that remain objective.

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 21 Cozy Classroom Reading Corners
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Math Center Ideas for Teachers
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Student-Centered Learning Activity Ideas
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Game-Based Learning Activities for the Classroom

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples

How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples

Published on January 11, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on August 15, 2023 by Eoghan Ryan.

A thesis statement is a sentence that sums up the central point of your paper or essay . It usually comes near the end of your introduction .

Your thesis will look a bit different depending on the type of essay you’re writing. But the thesis statement should always clearly state the main idea you want to get across. Everything else in your essay should relate back to this idea.

You can write your thesis statement by following four simple steps:

• Start with a question
• Write your initial answer
• Develop your answer
• Refine your thesis statement

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is a thesis statement, placement of the thesis statement, step 1: start with a question, step 2: write your initial answer, step 3: develop your answer, step 4: refine your thesis statement, types of thesis statements, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about thesis statements.

A thesis statement summarizes the central points of your essay. It is a signpost telling the reader what the essay will argue and why.

The best thesis statements are:

• Concise: A good thesis statement is short and sweet—don’t use more words than necessary. State your point clearly and directly in one or two sentences.
• Contentious: Your thesis shouldn’t be a simple statement of fact that everyone already knows. A good thesis statement is a claim that requires further evidence or analysis to back it up.
• Coherent: Everything mentioned in your thesis statement must be supported and explained in the rest of your paper.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

The thesis statement generally appears at the end of your essay introduction or research paper introduction .

The spread of the internet has had a world-changing effect, not least on the world of education. The use of the internet in academic contexts and among young people more generally is hotly debated. For many who did not grow up with this technology, its effects seem alarming and potentially harmful. This concern, while understandable, is misguided. The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its many benefits for education: the internet facilitates easier access to information, exposure to different perspectives, and a flexible learning environment for both students and teachers.

You should come up with an initial thesis, sometimes called a working thesis , early in the writing process . As soon as you’ve decided on your essay topic , you need to work out what you want to say about it—a clear thesis will give your essay direction and structure.

You might already have a question in your assignment, but if not, try to come up with your own. What would you like to find out or decide about your topic?

For example, you might ask:

After some initial research, you can formulate a tentative answer to this question. At this stage it can be simple, and it should guide the research process and writing process .

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Now you need to consider why this is your answer and how you will convince your reader to agree with you. As you read more about your topic and begin writing, your answer should get more detailed.

In your essay about the internet and education, the thesis states your position and sketches out the key arguments you’ll use to support it.

The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its many benefits for education because it facilitates easier access to information.

In your essay about braille, the thesis statement summarizes the key historical development that you’ll explain.

The invention of braille in the 19th century transformed the lives of blind people, allowing them to participate more actively in public life.

A strong thesis statement should tell the reader:

• Why you hold this position
• What they’ll learn from your essay
• The key points of your argument or narrative

The final thesis statement doesn’t just state your position, but summarizes your overall argument or the entire topic you’re going to explain. To strengthen a weak thesis statement, it can help to consider the broader context of your topic.

These examples are more specific and show that you’ll explore your topic in depth.

Your thesis statement should match the goals of your essay, which vary depending on the type of essay you’re writing:

• In an argumentative essay , your thesis statement should take a strong position. Your aim in the essay is to convince your reader of this thesis based on evidence and logical reasoning.
• In an expository essay , you’ll aim to explain the facts of a topic or process. Your thesis statement doesn’t have to include a strong opinion in this case, but it should clearly state the central point you want to make, and mention the key elements you’ll explain.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

• Choosing Essay Topic
• Write a College Essay
• Write a Diversity Essay
• College Essay Format & Structure
• Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

A thesis statement is a sentence that sums up the central point of your paper or essay . Everything else you write should relate to this key idea.

The thesis statement is essential in any academic essay or research paper for two main reasons:

• It gives your writing direction and focus.
• It gives the reader a concise summary of your main point.

Without a clear thesis statement, an essay can end up rambling and unfocused, leaving your reader unsure of exactly what you want to say.

Follow these four steps to come up with a thesis statement :

• Ask a question about your topic .
• Write your initial answer.
• Develop your answer by including reasons.
• Refine your answer, adding more detail and nuance.

The thesis statement should be placed at the end of your essay introduction .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, August 15). How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved July 8, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/thesis-statement/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write an essay introduction | 4 steps & examples, how to write topic sentences | 4 steps, examples & purpose, academic paragraph structure | step-by-step guide & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Essays About Freedom: 5 Helpful Examples and 7 Prompts

Freedom seems simple at first; however, it is quite a nuanced topic at a closer glance. If you are writing essays about freedom, read our guide of essay examples and writing prompts.

In a world where we constantly hear about violence, oppression, and war, few things are more important than freedom. It is the ability to act, speak, or think what we want without being controlled or subjected. It can be considered the gateway to achieving our goals, as we can take the necessary steps. 

However, freedom is not always “doing whatever we want.” True freedom means to do what is righteous and reasonable, even if there is the option to do otherwise. Moreover, freedom must come with responsibility; this is why laws are in place to keep society orderly but not too micro-managed, to an extent.

5 Examples of Essays About Freedom

1. essay on “freedom” by pragati ghosh, 2. acceptance is freedom by edmund perry, 3. reflecting on the meaning of freedom by marquita herald.

• 4.  Authentic Freedom by Wilfred Carlson

5. What are freedom and liberty? by Yasmin Youssef

1. what is freedom, 2. freedom in the contemporary world, 3. is freedom “not free”, 4. moral and ethical issues concerning freedom, 5. freedom vs. security, 6. free speech and hate speech, 7. an experience of freedom.

“Freedom is non denial of our basic rights as humans. Some freedom is specific to the age group that we fall into. A child is free to be loved and cared by parents and other members of family and play around. So this nurturing may be the idea of freedom to a child. Living in a crime free society in safe surroundings may mean freedom to a bit grown up child.”

In her essay, Ghosh briefly describes what freedom means to her. It is the ability to live your life doing what you want. However, she writes that we must keep in mind the dignity and freedom of others. One cannot simply kill and steal from people in the name of freedom; it is not absolute. She also notes that different cultures and age groups have different notions of freedom. Freedom is a beautiful thing, but it must be exercised in moderation. 

“They demonstrate that true freedom is about being accepted, through the scenarios that Ambrose Flack has written for them to endure. In The Strangers That Came to Town, the Duvitches become truly free at the finale of the story. In our own lives, we must ask: what can we do to help others become truly free?”

Perry’s essay discusses freedom in the context of Ambrose Flack’s short story The Strangers That Came to Town : acceptance is the key to being free. When the immigrant Duvitch family moved into a new town, they were not accepted by the community and were deprived of the freedom to live without shame and ridicule. However, when some townspeople reach out, the Duvitches feel empowered and relieved and are no longer afraid to go out and be themselves. 

“Freedom is many things, but those issues that are often in the forefront of conversations these days include the freedom to choose, to be who you truly are, to express yourself and to live your life as you desire so long as you do not hurt or restrict the personal freedom of others. I’ve compiled a collection of powerful quotations on the meaning of freedom to share with you, and if there is a single unifying theme it is that we must remember at all times that, regardless of where you live, freedom is not carved in stone, nor does it come without a price.”

In her short essay, Herald contemplates on freedom and what it truly means. She embraces her freedom and uses it to live her life to the fullest and to teach those around her. She values freedom and closes her essay with a list of quotations on the meaning of freedom, all with something in common: freedom has a price. With our freedom, we must be responsible. You might also be interested in these essays about consumerism .

4.   Authentic Freedom by Wilfred Carlson

“Freedom demands of one, or rather obligates one to concern ourselves with the affairs of the world around us. If you look at the world around a human being, countries where freedom is lacking, the overall population is less concerned with their fellow man, then in a freer society. The same can be said of individuals, the more freedom a human being has, and the more responsible one acts to other, on the whole.”

Carlson writes about freedom from a more religious perspective, saying that it is a right given to us by God. However, authentic freedom is doing what is right and what will help others rather than simply doing what one wants. If freedom were exercised with “doing what we want” in mind, the world would be disorderly. True freedom requires us to care for others and work together to better society. 

“In my opinion, the concepts of freedom and liberty are what makes us moral human beings. They include individual capacities to think, reason, choose and value different situations. It also means taking individual responsibility for ourselves, our decisions and actions. It includes self-governance and self-determination in combination with critical thinking, respect, transparency and tolerance. We should let no stone unturned in the attempt to reach a state of full freedom and liberty, even if it seems unrealistic and utopic.”

Youssef’s essay describes the concepts of freedom and liberty and how they allow us to do what we want without harming others. She notes that respect for others does not always mean agreeing with them. We can disagree, but we should not use our freedom to infringe on that of the people around us. To her, freedom allows us to choose what is good, think critically, and innovate. 

7 Prompts for Essays About Freedom

Freedom is quite a broad topic and can mean different things to different people. For your essay, define freedom and explain what it means to you. For example, freedom could mean having the right to vote, the right to work, or the right to choose your path in life. Then, discuss how you exercise your freedom based on these definitions and views. 

The world as we know it is constantly changing, and so is the entire concept of freedom. Research the state of freedom in the world today and center your essay on the topic of modern freedom. For example, discuss freedom while still needing to work to pay bills and ask, “Can we truly be free when we cannot choose with the constraints of social norms?” You may compare your situation to the state of freedom in other countries and in the past if you wish. 

A common saying goes like this: “Freedom is not free.” Reflect on this quote and write your essay about what it means to you: how do you understand it? In addition, explain whether you believe it to be true or not, depending on your interpretation. 

Many contemporary issues exemplify both the pros and cons of freedom; for example, slavery shows the worst when freedom is taken away, while gun violence exposes the disadvantages of too much freedom. First, discuss one issue regarding freedom and briefly touch on its causes and effects. Then, be sure to explain how it relates to freedom. 

Some believe that more laws curtail the right to freedom and liberty. In contrast, others believe that freedom and regulation can coexist, saying that freedom must come with the responsibility to ensure a safe and orderly society. Take a stand on this issue and argue for your position, supporting your response with adequate details and credible sources. 

Many people, especially online, have used their freedom of speech to attack others based on race and gender, among other things. Many argue that hate speech is still free and should be protected, while others want it regulated. Is it infringing on freedom? You decide and be sure to support your answer adequately. Include a rebuttal of the opposing viewpoint for a more credible argumentative essay. 

For your essay, you can also reflect on a time you felt free. It could be your first time going out alone, moving into a new house, or even going to another country. How did it make you feel? Reflect on your feelings, particularly your sense of freedom, and explain them in detail. 

Check out our guide packed full of transition words for essays .If you are interested in learning more, check out our essay writing tips !

Thesis Statements

What this handout is about.

This handout describes what a thesis statement is, how thesis statements work in your writing, and how you can craft or refine one for your draft.

Introduction

Writing in college often takes the form of persuasion—convincing others that you have an interesting, logical point of view on the subject you are studying. Persuasion is a skill you practice regularly in your daily life. You persuade your roommate to clean up, your parents to let you borrow the car, your friend to vote for your favorite candidate or policy. In college, course assignments often ask you to make a persuasive case in writing. You are asked to convince your reader of your point of view. This form of persuasion, often called academic argument, follows a predictable pattern in writing. After a brief introduction of your topic, you state your point of view on the topic directly and often in one sentence. This sentence is the thesis statement, and it serves as a summary of the argument you’ll make in the rest of your paper.

What is a thesis statement?

A thesis statement:

• tells the reader how you will interpret the significance of the subject matter under discussion.
• is a road map for the paper; in other words, it tells the reader what to expect from the rest of the paper.
• directly answers the question asked of you. A thesis is an interpretation of a question or subject, not the subject itself. The subject, or topic, of an essay might be World War II or Moby Dick; a thesis must then offer a way to understand the war or the novel.
• makes a claim that others might dispute.
• is usually a single sentence near the beginning of your paper (most often, at the end of the first paragraph) that presents your argument to the reader. The rest of the paper, the body of the essay, gathers and organizes evidence that will persuade the reader of the logic of your interpretation.

If your assignment asks you to take a position or develop a claim about a subject, you may need to convey that position or claim in a thesis statement near the beginning of your draft. The assignment may not explicitly state that you need a thesis statement because your instructor may assume you will include one. When in doubt, ask your instructor if the assignment requires a thesis statement. When an assignment asks you to analyze, to interpret, to compare and contrast, to demonstrate cause and effect, or to take a stand on an issue, it is likely that you are being asked to develop a thesis and to support it persuasively. (Check out our handout on understanding assignments for more information.)

How do I create a thesis?

A thesis is the result of a lengthy thinking process. Formulating a thesis is not the first thing you do after reading an essay assignment. Before you develop an argument on any topic, you have to collect and organize evidence, look for possible relationships between known facts (such as surprising contrasts or similarities), and think about the significance of these relationships. Once you do this thinking, you will probably have a “working thesis” that presents a basic or main idea and an argument that you think you can support with evidence. Both the argument and your thesis are likely to need adjustment along the way.

Writers use all kinds of techniques to stimulate their thinking and to help them clarify relationships or comprehend the broader significance of a topic and arrive at a thesis statement. For more ideas on how to get started, see our handout on brainstorming .

How do I know if my thesis is strong?

If there’s time, run it by your instructor or make an appointment at the Writing Center to get some feedback. Even if you do not have time to get advice elsewhere, you can do some thesis evaluation of your own. When reviewing your first draft and its working thesis, ask yourself the following :

• Do I answer the question? Re-reading the question prompt after constructing a working thesis can help you fix an argument that misses the focus of the question. If the prompt isn’t phrased as a question, try to rephrase it. For example, “Discuss the effect of X on Y” can be rephrased as “What is the effect of X on Y?”
• Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose? If your thesis simply states facts that no one would, or even could, disagree with, it’s possible that you are simply providing a summary, rather than making an argument.
• Is my thesis statement specific enough? Thesis statements that are too vague often do not have a strong argument. If your thesis contains words like “good” or “successful,” see if you could be more specific: why is something “good”; what specifically makes something “successful”?
• Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test? If a reader’s first response is likely to  be “So what?” then you need to clarify, to forge a relationship, or to connect to a larger issue.
• Does my essay support my thesis specifically and without wandering? If your thesis and the body of your essay do not seem to go together, one of them has to change. It’s okay to change your working thesis to reflect things you have figured out in the course of writing your paper. Remember, always reassess and revise your writing as necessary.
• Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test? If a reader’s first response is “how?” or “why?” your thesis may be too open-ended and lack guidance for the reader. See what you can add to give the reader a better take on your position right from the beginning.

Suppose you are taking a course on contemporary communication, and the instructor hands out the following essay assignment: “Discuss the impact of social media on public awareness.” Looking back at your notes, you might start with this working thesis:

Social media impacts public awareness in both positive and negative ways.

You can use the questions above to help you revise this general statement into a stronger thesis.

• Do I answer the question? You can analyze this if you rephrase “discuss the impact” as “what is the impact?” This way, you can see that you’ve answered the question only very generally with the vague “positive and negative ways.”
• Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose? Not likely. Only people who maintain that social media has a solely positive or solely negative impact could disagree.
• Is my thesis statement specific enough? No. What are the positive effects? What are the negative effects?
• Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test? No. Why are they positive? How are they positive? What are their causes? Why are they negative? How are they negative? What are their causes?
• Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test? No. Why should anyone care about the positive and/or negative impact of social media?

After thinking about your answers to these questions, you decide to focus on the one impact you feel strongly about and have strong evidence for:

Because not every voice on social media is reliable, people have become much more critical consumers of information, and thus, more informed voters.

This version is a much stronger thesis! It answers the question, takes a specific position that others can challenge, and it gives a sense of why it matters.

Let’s try another. Suppose your literature professor hands out the following assignment in a class on the American novel: Write an analysis of some aspect of Mark Twain’s novel Huckleberry Finn. “This will be easy,” you think. “I loved Huckleberry Finn!” You grab a pad of paper and write:

Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn is a great American novel.

You begin to analyze your thesis:

• Do I answer the question? No. The prompt asks you to analyze some aspect of the novel. Your working thesis is a statement of general appreciation for the entire novel.

Think about aspects of the novel that are important to its structure or meaning—for example, the role of storytelling, the contrasting scenes between the shore and the river, or the relationships between adults and children. Now you write:

In Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain develops a contrast between life on the river and life on the shore.

• Do I answer the question? Yes!
• Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose? Not really. This contrast is well-known and accepted.
• Is my thesis statement specific enough? It’s getting there–you have highlighted an important aspect of the novel for investigation. However, it’s still not clear what your analysis will reveal.
• Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test? Not yet. Compare scenes from the book and see what you discover. Free write, make lists, jot down Huck’s actions and reactions and anything else that seems interesting.
• Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test? What’s the point of this contrast? What does it signify?”

After examining the evidence and considering your own insights, you write:

Through its contrasting river and shore scenes, Twain’s Huckleberry Finn suggests that to find the true expression of American democratic ideals, one must leave “civilized” society and go back to nature.

This final thesis statement presents an interpretation of a literary work based on an analysis of its content. Of course, for the essay itself to be successful, you must now present evidence from the novel that will convince the reader of your interpretation.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Lunsford, Andrea A. 2015. The St. Martin’s Handbook , 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.

Ramage, John D., John C. Bean, and June Johnson. 2018. The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing , 8th ed. New York: Pearson.

Ruszkiewicz, John J., Christy Friend, Daniel Seward, and Maxine Hairston. 2010. The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers , 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Freedom - List of Essay Samples And Topic Ideas

Freedom, often defined as the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants, is a complex and multifaceted concept. Essays on freedom could explore its various dimensions including political, social, and personal freedoms, the historical struggles for freedom, and the balance between freedom and societal order. Discussions might delve into philosophical interpretations, the legal frameworks that uphold freedom, and the challenges posed by censorship, oppression, and inequality. Moreover, analyzing various movements for freedom, exploring the representation of freedom in literature and arts, and examining the enduring quest for freedom in global contexts can provide a comprehensive understanding of this fundamental human aspiration. We’ve gathered an extensive assortment of free essay samples on the topic of Freedom you can find at Papersowl. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

Comparison of Freedom Writers Diary

The book The freedom writer's diary is a very different book compared to others. The structure is much more different. Instead of being one basic journal entry its 150 high school students and their diary entries put together to form a revelation and discovery about the rich history of the holocaust. The book was very intriguing but now the real question is how do the movie and book correlate with eachother. The most significant theme in The Freedom Writers Diary […]

Veterans: Fight for Freedom and Rights

Veterans have sacrificed so much for our country by fighting to maintain our freedom and rights. For this reason, the government should do something about the veterans poverty rate. Veterans have resources that they could use but the resources do not always reach out to the veterans in need. The rate of homeless veterans is very high compared to non-veterans in the United States because they were usually not ever taught how to write a resume and many have had […]

The Birthplace of both the Bill of Rights

Have you ever tried to get on a website that you needed to get on and it was blocked? The sad reality is that two thirds of global users do not enjoy access to free internet, due to different forms of censorship. These vary from essentially keeping all internet users in an elaborate virtual and tightly controlled sandbox. They should lower internet censorship because It removes the freedom of expression and deprives people of learning the truth, students in school […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

Freedom and Equality in the Animal Farm

George Orwell's Animal Farm is written about how actions can give a bad idea of freedom and equality. The animals on the farm were inspired by what Old Major had told them before he died. The animals dreamed about being free but after the rebellion, they ended up being completely obedient to the new leader Napoleon. Napoleon the boar and Boxer the horse were most significant in the loss of freedom and equality in the novel. Napoleon was a big […]

Themes of Freedom and Confinement in “The Cask of Amontillado” by Edgar Allan Poe

Humans have always struggled against freedom. However, they choose not to identify that history has proved again that too much freedom encourage anarchy. Freedom is the right to act, speak or think without hindrance. This theme of freedom is displayed in Poe’s The Cask of Amontillado. For one person to be free, another must die. Fortunato and Montresor are symbols of how human nature display differently in different people in varying combinations of psychological and physical freedom. “It was about dusk, […]

Harrison Bergeron: the Rebellion for Freedom

Beauty masked. The strong are forced to pretend to be weak. The brightest minds forced to average intelligence. Equality in all people with all abilities is only possible with complete control and a lack of freedom to be different. Kurt Vonnegut’s dystopian, science fiction, “Harrison Bergeron” was published in October of 1961. The story takes place in a futuristic America that is plagued with the obsession of everyone being equal. People who are graced with bright minds, beautiful faces, or […]

The Freedom Writers Diary

The movie, The Freedom Writers Diary is based on the story of a class of students and their English Teacher, Erin Gruwell at Wilson High School in Long Beach California. The movie covers the lives of the students through their freshman to senior years. The students that she handles consists of mainly Latino, African American, and Asian races. At the onset of her interaction with the students, Ms.Erin Gruwell experiences racial discriminations among and between the students. The students, apart […]

What is Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is the right of ones' right to express and communicate their ideas, opinion, and beliefs. As a result, nobody should fear being reprimanded, punished, or expurgated by society and perhaps the government at large. In most cases, it is done to attract mass attention from the community. It is entirely synonymous to seeking freedom of denied privileges such as an inappropriate distribution of public resources and side-lining of the minority among others. It is a universal right […]

The Truman Show Trapped Freedom

When you feel like you don't belong, and you feel like that there is something you are not understanding, you tend to look for what's missing. You change and hear lies that make you believe trapped to something not real. You don't know anything, but you feel that the freedom you have it not true, you feel trapped. Through the source of irony, The Truman Show shows freedom feels great when you cannot be more trapped. Knowing that he is […]

Shakespeare’s the Tempest : Freedom

To be in servitude is the state of being a slave or completely subject to someone more powerful. Freedom is a condition of having liberty and control of your own actions without the fear and repercussions of confinement. Breaking down the themes of freedom, imprisonment, and its relationship in an authoritative use; we can connect these ideas with elements in Shakespeare’s The Tempest. The Tempest was written in the early 17th century, a time period known to have a strengthened […]

The Aristotle’s Perspective on Freedom Citizenship and PolityImam Subkhan

From Ethics to Politics:The Aristotle's Perspective on Freedom, Citizenship, and PolityImam SubkhanEveryone wants to be happy with their lives. Aristotle contended that the happiness is "something final and self-sufficient, and the end of action" (Ethica Nicomachea, 941) that transcend all the aims of action. The actions or anything we do are intended to something that we consider good. It means there are many goods in our lives, but there is the one good that becomes an umbrella for other goods, […]

Education in Freedom Writers

Socioeconomic factors play an important role in molding the attitudes of students within a learning environment. Primarily, the students' perceptions regarding their social context drive the plotline of the film. Evidently, their view of education in relation to their social conditions skews towards hopelessness. They are indifferent to the concept of learning because they originate from a less-advantaged social setting, which does not provide any hope for a better future. The socioeconomic hardships experienced by the students within their neighborhood […]

Freedom and Social Constraints in Jane Austen’s Persuasion

Anne Elliot's persona in Jane Austen's Persuasion subtly criticizes the effects of imposing culture and class distinction that middle-class women face in 19th Century England. These self-limiting ideals define the identity and social functions of women at the time. By addressing Anne's perceived proper place in society, Austen exposes women's vulnerability to the constraints of social order. She also illustrates how women, judged by their social conduct, ultimately do not have the freedom to choose their own happiness. Many of […]

Harriet Tubman and her Journey Towards Freedom

Could you imagine the life of a african american back in the south during the 1820’s. Having the lack of freedom, doing hard labor in the burning heat, or doing rough labor in the bone chilling cold. No we really can’t. With the amazing freedom everyone has today in this amazing country. Today all races can go around the United States without getting beat or even killed. Today everyone is treated with equality. But the world was not always so […]

Harriet Tubman: the Road to Freedom

Harriet Tubman is well known for her courage and bravery. She was a nurse,civil rights activist, and led many African Americans to freedom. She was born in Dorchester County, MD. around 1820, or so they think. And she died in Auburn NY.on march 10, 1913. Her original name was Araminta Ross but she later changed her name to Harriet like her mother. Unfortunately no records were kept over Harriet Tubman so her exact date of birth is unknown. Harriet Tubman […]

The War for Freedom

The War for Freedom In 1861, the nations most deadly war began. To make it worse, the enemy we fought was ourselves. This was known as the Civil War. The Civil War was caused due to rising tensions between the northerners and the southerners. The rising tensions caused America to clash with itself. One of the most interesting parts of this war was that nobody knew exactly what each side was fighting for. Answers varied from we want to keep […]

Freedom of Speech in the United States

Freedom of speech has been protected in The United States by the First Amendment since 1791. For over 100 years, this right, though symbolically important, has sat dormant. However today, freedom of speech has been in the headlines due to its involvement in controversial topics surrounding the media, political correctness, and “hate speech”. Hateful beliefs and intolerance towards those with different characteristics exist throughout society and results in an environment of hate. Americans now have a hard choice to make […]

Harriet Tubman: Path to Freedom

Harriet Tubman is one of the most influential African Americans in history, but she would not have been so successful if it was not for her life growing up and the challenges she faced. Harriet Tubman encountered adversity as a child and without struggling as a child, she would not have been successful in what she accomplished. Harriet Tubman is one of the most influential figures in American history because she became head of the espionage for the Union Army, […]

Freedom Writers: Outlooks of Students to Learning

Since historic times, the subject of race relations has been crucial in shaping the outlooks of students to learning. The film presents a diverse set of learners; however, the major composition is ethnic minority groups, primarily Latinos and African-Americans. For a long time, these groups have been victims of social limitations, including poor education, lack of opportunity, and marginalization (Jones 1212). For these reasons, the students emerge from a background marred by educational, ethnic, commercial, and societal unfairness. Besides, their […]

Religious Freedom and Christianity

For many Americans their religious culture and beliefs play a very important role in how they live their lives. Those who have been brought up in a religious culture, have had the beliefs of their religion instilled in them from a young age. When leaving home to go to college, they for the most part seek out peers with the same religious beliefs. For that reason, many religious groups have been established in collages all over the country. Religious beliefs […]

Hatred under the Freedom of Speech

There is a thin line between an open expression of plain hatred and the expression of opinion. It is safe to assume that every person at some point of his or her life, either witnessed or experienced a bias from bigots based on race, nationality, sex, or other characteristics. People interpret “hate speech” differently; some compare it to the crime; others see it as practicing the First Amendment. Both groups can bring a lot of arguments to support their point […]

Gender Identity and Freedom of Speech

The views of professor of psychology, Jordan Peterson at the University of Toronto on the issue of gender identity and his beliefs, position and refusal to use gender-neutral pronouns has sparked debates. The arguments by the professor have arisen a lot of objective and subjective intuition on his stand that his freedom of speech and need to become politically correct cannot determine by use of pronouns. Discussions are presented in different articles by Ellen Brait, a staff reporter for the […]

Freedom Writers: Los Angeles Riot

The setting of the film is in 1994, two years after the Los Angeles Riot. The riots, which were of a racial nature, were caused by the acquittal of white police officers who were caught on video brutally assaulting an unarmed black man named Rodney King (Davis 214). Reasonably, the issue of race figures prominently in the films as it tries to portray the racially charged environment of the school, which is situated in the same state where the riots […]

Freedom Writers Health Disparities Paper

The film Freedom Writers is a film based on a true story that involves a teacher who was hired for a teaching job at Woodrow Wilson High School in Long Beach, California. The school had started an integration program which means that any student of any race was able to be admitted in the school, in which many teachers believed that caused the school's academic success to decline. When creating her lesson plan, Mrs. Gruwell's colleague, Mrs. Campbell, told her […]

Nature of Freedom in the Eighteenth and the Nineteenth Century

Evidence shows that the nature of freedom in the eighteenth and the nineteenth century was still a critical aspect that was not yet fully induced in the societal and national leadership and human rights related sectors. It was yet a factor that was dear to the people, they were sacrificing to earn it, but at the same time, they were not in full recognition of what it entailed, hence for some, the freedom they thought they had was not freedom […]

Freedom for same Sex Marriage

Marriage is a fundamental personal right, but it is also good for families and for society. Thera are about 9 million gay people in the US, According to the 2010 census, about 640,000 same sex couple households. That is a lot of people who are denied important legal and social benefits unless gay marriage is recognized. Gay families have been living as real families for decades now, even in the absence of the full sanction of marriage. They’ve shown that […]

The Libertarian Notion of Freedom

The libertarian notion of freedom is grounded in self ownership and the fact that people have certain rights; one of those rights being that you should be allowed to do what you want with what you own. Others should not be allowed to stop you, and this is why libertarians hate paternalistic laws and moral legislation laws. Those laws could potentially get in the way of people doing what they want with what they own if it clashes with what […]

Contrast between the Libertarian Notion of Freedom

I believe the biggest contrast between the libertarian notion of freedom and Kant's version is the idea of autonomy (Kant) versus heteronomy (libertarian). Libertarian's value their right to be able to do anything they please to do with their time and properties so long as their desires are met. They believe in self-ownership because this concept allows them to do just that exactly. However, Kant would call this definition of freedom as heteronomous because the motive behind doing what a […]

Schools in Mississippi – “Freedom of Choice”

Facts: Many schools in Holmes County, Mississippi were still segregated fourteen years after the decision of Brown v. Board of Education. Schools in Mississippi had been implementing “freedom of choice” laws so that parents could choose where they wanted to send their children to school (Oyez). An order was passed by the U.S. District Court for Southern Mississippi in 1969, allowing this standard to be upheld. The case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, […]

Analysis on Freedom and Democracy

This essay analyzes how powerful people like Nelson Mandela, Fredrick Douglass and Benazir Bhutto have fought for the liberation and independence of their country. These people have faced a lot of challenges in their fight for democracy and freedom. In many countries in the world many leaders have really suffered so that the democracy can be attained. These leaders had efficient qualities and were brave and this made them to achieve what they fought for. These articles explain how it […]

Related topic

Additional example essays.

• A Compare and Contrast Essay on Two Movies 'Inception' and 'The Matrix: Parallel Worlds and Diverging Realities
• Why We Crave Horror Movies Stephen King Essay
• Why You Should Play Fortnite
• Freedom Writer Movie Review
• What Freedom Means To Me
• Personal Narrative: My Family Genogram
• Homeschooling vs Public School
• "Mother to Son" by Langston Hughes
• Socioautobiography Choices and Experiences Growing up
• Homeschooling vs Traditional Schooling
• Drunk Driving
• The Psychology of Batman

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — The Story of An Hour — The Theme Of Freedom In The Story Of An Hour By Kate Chopin

The Theme of Freedom in The Story of an Hour by Kate Chopin

• Categories: Freedom Kate Chopin The Story of An Hour

About this sample

Words: 685 |

Published: Jan 28, 2021

Words: 685 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Kate Chopin's short story, "The Story of an Hour," explores the theme of unrealized freedom through the lens of characterization and irony. The narrative delves into the complex emotions that arise when freedom unexpectedly dawns, only to be swiftly extinguished.

Characterization plays a pivotal role in conveying the transformation of Mrs. Mallard. Her character evolves significantly as she grapples with the sudden realization of freedom. The story employs irony to underscore the situation's complexity. While Mrs. Mallard initially fixates on her husband's death, the world outside her window is bursting with life, creating a stark contrast. The gift of freedom allows Mrs. Mallard to further develop her character. Although she cherished her husband, the allure of newfound freedom becomes irresistible.

In "The Story of an Hour," freedom is depicted as a precious but fleeting gift. Chopin uses irony to reveal the stark contrast between appearances and reality, while characterization illuminates Mrs. Mallard's transformation in the face of unexpected freedom. Ultimately, the story underscores the idea that freedom should be cherished, even if it is brief and elusive.

Works Cited

• Chopin, K. (1894). The Story of an Hour. Vogue, 23(1), 1-2.
• Dictionary.com. (n.d.). Freedom. In Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/freedom
• Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Freedom. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom
• Berkove, L. (2000). Fatal Self-Assertion in Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour". American Literary Realism, 32(2), 152-158.
• Taylor, H. (1994). Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour": A Feminist Reading. The Mississippi Quarterly, 47(4), 527-536.
• Toth, E. W. (1994). Chopin's "The Story of an Hour". The Explicator, 52(1), 22-23.
• Papke, M. (1995). Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour": A Response to Feminist Criticism. The Southern Literary Journal, 27(2), 42-50.
• Halliburton, D. (2002). Kate Chopin's The Story of an Hour. Explicator, 60(4), 211-213.
• Niederhoff, B. (2014). Kate Chopin, "The Story of an Hour". In B. Niederhoff (Ed.), A Companion to American Short Story (pp. 159-169). John Wiley & Sons.
• Berkove, L. (2003). Fatal Self-Assertion in Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour". In S. M. Gilbert & S. Gubar (Eds.), The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women: The Tradition in English (3rd ed., pp. 1104-1108). W.W. Norton & Company.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 726 words

2 pages / 1058 words

6 pages / 2729 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on The Story of An Hour

Kate Chopin’s short story “The Story of an Hour” is a captivating and thought-provoking tale that delves into the complexities of human emotions and the impact of societal norms on an individual’s psyche. The story revolves [...]

Freedom and self-assertion have been significant themes in literature, especially during periods of social change. In Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour," the author skillfully employs literary devices to explore the theme of [...]

Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour" is a short story that explores the internal conflict of the protagonist, Mrs. Mallard, and her pursuit of personal freedom. The story is set during the late 19th century, a time when societal [...]

Women’s role in society has always been a widely-discussed topic. The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman and The Story of an Hour by Kate Chopin are two stories that explore this issue. Do you want to compare and [...]

Death can have different meanings to a person. Sometimes people get joy from it and most of the times they do not. Most widows would respond in a sorrowful way towards their husband’s death, but Louise responded in a untroubled [...]

American literature varies from other literary works across the world. Every story seems to express a different theme, and yet somehow they all seem similar. The Gift of the Magi and The Story of an Hour, written within 15 years [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Essay Service Examples Social Issues Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech Essay: Thesis Statement

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Introduction

Literature review, methodology.

• The Julius Stone Institute of Jurisprudence, University of Sydney, The Julius Stone Address 2003, Thursday, 31 July 2003. https:digitalcommons.law.yale.educgiviewcontent.cgi?referer=https:scholar.google.com&httpsredir=1&article=1241&context=fss_papers
• Jack M. Balkin The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age, 36 Pepp. L. Rev. Iss. 2 (2009) Available at https:digitalcommons.pepperdine.educgiviewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=plr
• Minna Aslama Horowitz, Hannu Nieminen, and Amit M. Schejter Source: Journal of Information Policy, 2020, Vol. 10 (2020), pp. 299-303, Published by Penn State University Press https:www.jstor.orgstablepdf10.5325jinfopoli.10.2020.0299.pdf?ab_segments=0%252Fbasic_search_solr_cloud%252Fcontrol&refreqid=excelsior%3A98df2a864a495bbd6e992902c3d9ce32
• Tarik Tabbara, Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, September 1996 file:C:UsersMMCVideoscardMQ29842.pdf
• A study of public opinion in Sweden, Ulla Carlsson and Lennart Weibull, 2018 https:www.diva-portal.orgsmashgetdiva2:1229692FULLTEXT01.pdf

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

Most popular essays

• Freedom of Speech

In 2015, the Asian American Student Association at Brandeis University posted several signs...

Anything you put on the internet, is there forever. An unfortunate, but almost certain fact of...

• First Amendment
• Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression is important to highlight when considering use language, its defined as...

• Hate Speech

When looking at why political concepts are subject to contestation, it is important to first look...

• American Culture
• American Values

The definition of an American is very difficult to tackle, it’s a definition that can branch out...

The media in South Africa works in a domain liberated from oppression, persecution and the harsh...

Free speech and censorship is a highly debated topic with many aspects to the different views on...

Two things from the bedrock of any open society- freedom of expression and rule of law. If you...

Freedom of speech is a contentious subject. Academically, it can be argued as both good and bad...

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

• University of Pennsylvania
• School of Arts and Sciences
• Penn Calendar

Search form

On Thesis Statements

The thesis statement.

This is not an exhaustive list of bad thesis statements, but here're five kinds of problems I've seen most often. Notice that the last two, #4 and #5, are not necessarily incorrect or illegitimate thesis statements, but, rather, inappropriate for the purposes of this course. They may be useful forms for papers on different topics in other courses.

A thesis takes a position on an issue. It is different from a topic sentence in that a thesis statement is not neutral. It announces, in addition to the topic, the argument you want to make or the point you want to prove. This is your own opinion that you intend to back up. This is your reason and motivation for writing.

Bad Thesis 1

Bad Thesis 2 : This paper will consider the advantages and disadvantages of certain restrictions on free speech.

Better Thesis 1 : Stanley Fish's argument that free speech exists more as a political prize than as a legal reality ignores the fact that even as a political prize it still serves the social end of creating a general cultural atmosphere of tolerance that may ultimately promote free speech in our nation just as effectively as any binding law.

Better Thesis 2 : Even though there may be considerable advantages to restricting hate speech, the possibility of chilling open dialogue on crucial racial issues is too great and too high a price to pay.

A thesis should be as specific as possible, and it should be tailored to reflect the scope of the paper. It is not possible, for instance, to write about the history of English literature in a 5 page paper. In addition to choosing simply a smaller topic, strategies to narrow a thesis include specifying a method or perspective or delineating certain limits.

Bad Thesis 2 : The government has the right to limit free speech.

Better Thesis 1 : There should be no restrictions on the 1st amendment if those restrictions are intended merely to protect individuals from unspecified or otherwise unquantifiable or unverifiable "emotional distress."

Better Thesis 2 : The government has the right to limit free speech in cases of overtly racist or sexist language because our failure to address such abuses would effectively suggest that our society condones such ignorant and hateful views.

A thesis must be arguable. And in order for it to be arguable, it must present a view that someone might reasonably contest. Sometimes a thesis ultimately says, "we should be good," or "bad things are bad." Such thesis statements are tautological or so universally accepted that there is no need to prove the point.

Bad Thesis 2 : There are always alternatives to using racist speech.

Better Thesis 1 : If we can accept that emotional injuries can be just as painful as physical ones we should limit speech that may hurt people's feelings in ways similar to the way we limit speech that may lead directly to bodily harm.

Better Thesis 2 : The "fighting words" exception to free speech is not legitimate because it wrongly considers speech as an action.

A good argumentative thesis provides not only a position on an issue, but also suggests the structure of the paper. The thesis should allow the reader to imagine and anticipate the flow of the paper, in which a sequence of points logically prove the essay's main assertion. A list essay provides no such structure, so that different points and paragraphs appear arbitrary with no logical connection to one another.

Bad Thesis 2 : None of the arguments in favor of regulating pornography are persuasive.

Better Thesis 1 : Among the many reasons we need to limit hate speech the most compelling ones all refer to our history of discrimination and prejudice, and it is, ultimately, for the purpose of trying to repair our troubled racial society that we need hate speech legislation.

Better Thesis 2 : None of the arguments in favor of regulating pornography are persuasive because they all base their points on the unverifiable and questionable assumption that the producers of pornography necessarily harbor ill will specifically to women.

In an other course this would not be at all unacceptable, and, in fact, possibly even desirable. But in this kind of course, a thesis statement that makes a factual claim that can be verified only with scientific, sociological, psychological or other kind of experimental evidence is not appropriate. You need to construct a thesis that you are prepared to prove using the tools you have available, without having to consult the world's leading expert on the issue to provide you with a definitive judgment.

Bad Thesis 2 : Hate speech can cause emotional pain and suffering in victims just as intense as physical battery.

Better Thesis 1 : Whether or not the cultural concept of free speech bears any relation to the reality of 1st amendment legislation and jurisprudence, its continuing social function as a promoter of tolerance and intellectual exchange trumps the call for politicization (according to Fish's agenda) of the term.

Better Thesis 2 : The various arguments against the regulation of hate speech depend on the unspoken and unexamined assumption that emotional pain is either trivial.

Freedom of speech thesis statement

Although freedom of speech is the key to all human rights ,in fact it should not be in terms of provoking criminal activities or harming someone's reputation .

Add your answer:

Top Categories

The meaning of freedom today Analytical Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Personal freedom, sartre’s existentialist definition of freedom, equality and independence, karl marx on freedom, the practice of freedom, michael foucault on freedom.

In the contemporary society, people consider freedom a basic need in that person who is not free must be in a rough co-existence with him and others. It is therefore very important to exalt freedom, which begins with personal liberty to the sovereignty of nations.

The extent to which a person can be free as well as the exact definition of freedom has been subjected to philosophical discourses from time immemorial with renowned philosophers such as Karl Marx, Michael Foucault and Jean Paul Sartre having differing arguments in the matter. According to the school of thought that each one of them represented, the idea of freedom to them bears differing definitions and extends.

In order to come up with an agreeable and logical definition of freedom as it is in the contemporary society, people have critically analyzed the input of these philosophers and their definition of freedom in this paper with the intention of clearly understanding what freedom is according to the schools of thought they represent today.

As I reveal, the exact meaning of freedom must comprise of the different aspects such as personal liberty, the right to life, equality and independence from coercion and repressive conditions such as poverty, ignorance and diseases. Any meaning of freedom is wanting if it does not address the issue of personal liberty.

Freedom starts with a sense of self-control or rather self-ownership. In this case, reason influences the person’s sense of freedom. In a free state, every person receives an equal chance of exercising freedom at personal level. In this case, no other person influences another’s decisions and the extent to which he/she makes decisions remains strictly limited by him/her.

This is in other words to say that in a free state a person’s freedom is not limited as long as it does not impact negatively or limit the freedom of the other people. For instance, a person’s freedom cannot include enslaving other people. As a slave, a person is not free to make certain decisions, movements and interactions with other people in the society.

In a free state therefore, a person is not entitle to take the freedom of another person for personal interests since it is against their wish to be treated so. My fellow panelist Sartre concurs with my view of freedom despite his limited definition of the freedom.

According to Jean Paul Sartre, man is condemned to be free. This is without regard to whether he acts from external constraints to repress it or just follows his pragmatic decisions.

A person is free when s/he refuses to act in bad faith and instead follow what he is. For instance, when the waiter who knows really well that he is impersonating a waiter stops that and instead does what his freedom grants, he is at that particular moment embracing freedom.

By being a waiter, the person is only denying his or her own freedom. According to existentialism, one cannot claim that external forces shape his/her deeds or actions. For instance, the profession of a person cannot shape the person’s identity considering that the roles played in that profession are only as a matter of bad faith and will eventually cease.

Being aware of one’s significance in the process of doing the roles in the profession inform the choices that a person makes and that seem directed to the person’s sense of freedom. However, I stand to criticize his definition based on how limited it appears.

Sartre, as well as other existentialists, concentrates more on the intrinsic definition of self-freedom rather than giving a definition and an extent to freedom that one can put into practice in the contemporary society. He does not clarify whether a person is free or not clearly defined in that existentialists hold that in every situation a person has still the freedom of choice.

Having the freedom of choice is not that important and does not qualify as being the absolute meaning of being free. This is basically for the simple reason that even a person who is enslaved by another has the freedom to choose either to rebel or to show complicity but that does not mean that they are free.

In the contemporary society, a person is only free if any other person or condition can implement his /her thoughts and choices without any repression. The issue of equality of freedom constitutes the meaning of freedom.

Equality is very essential in any situation for a person to be free in the contemporary society. This ranges from political, sexual, racial as well as religious equality.

For people to consider another as free in a free state, he/she must go through an equal treatment with others regardless of their gender or any other affiliations. When a person is marginalized on the any of the above areas, their freedom is interfered with and eventually the person is deprived the necessity of being free.

With equality comes independence in making decisions as well as living without any coercion from anyone. This implies that the different types of independence that Karl Marx and others who embrace the Marxist school of thought argued mostly about.

Karl Marx in his Manifesto of the communist party conceptualizes freedom from an economic point of view. Marx conceptualizes freedom from an individualistic point of view whereby he argues that freedom is an individual’s collective use of reason to create a reconciled definition of personal and public freedom.

From this, Marx argues that a person who exercises freedom at the expense of the masses abuses it since the freedom of the majority is the one that matters. For instance, a person who owns means of production and abuses his employees for the sake of enriching himself and expanding his financial freedom by enriching himself is infringing the freedom of the others.

It is therefore clear from his arguments that Marx’s view of freedom is more informed by the social relations of people in the society. He argues that for a state to be termed as free there has to be a revolution whereby the proletariat overpower the bourgeoisie and own the means of production.

In that case, the majority would be free in that they will be in a position to cope with life without the fear of being oppressed by a powerful ruling class. However, I stand to criticize the view based on its one-sidedness.

Marx’s idea of the masses overpowering the ruling class, as a necessary precondition for their freedom, is one sided and has failed to hold on for a long time. This stands out because he fails to address other important aspects such as equality, the addressing of human rights and the dealing with other factors that lead to the oppression of people.

His address however on the issue of economic oppression holds until today as evidenced by workers rising up against their oppressive employers in the contemporary society and demanding for a fair exchange for their labor. This is because a person’s freedom seems abused if he/she faces oppression in any given situation.

The fact that in order to be completely free one must keenly be aware of the limits of his/her freedom is a very important factor to consider when defining freedom in the society today.

This is in the sense that other people’s freedom is as important as your freedom. A question arises as to whether a person has or should have the right to defend him/herself against coercion. This brings forth a quite interesting aspect of freedom regarded as the freedom of defense.

In most Free states where freedom of people seems held with dignity, always a system acts to differentiate acts of coercion as either offensive or defensive. In this case, whether a person acted in an effort to defend him/herself or was interfering with another’s rights is established. Foucault’s meaning today’s of freedom is wanting based on its failure to explain how one can free him/herself.

According to Michael Foucault, being free is a practice of the different practices of freedom. To him it is therefore a continuous process. Foucault emphasizes more on the practices of freedom over the process of liberation. He argues that it the practices of freedom that eventually upholds freedom rather than the process of liberation.

For instance, he uses the example of a colonized nation, which liberates itself from the colonizers. The society would still be in need of practices of freedom as they engage in building their own government.

One can clearly notice that Foucault’s works are in a way, skeptical about the extent to which people can free themselves. If people cannot stand out of the constraints of relations of power, knowledge and subjectivity, then to him their practices of freedom are simply on a small notion of resistance from within.

In order to answer the question of what one exactly means by ‘being free’ in the contemporary society, it is of great essence to be all-round while addressing the aspects of freedom.

The problem with the definitions and the answers that philosophers Karl Marx, Michael Foucault and Jean Paul Sartre presents is that they are in most cases one sided whereby they all aimed at addressing a single aspect within the complex issue of freedom. Therefore, it is arguable that one can summon their arguments to contribute to the broad definition of today’s freedom.

• Nietzsche’s and Sartre’s Views on Morality
• Hell in Dante's Inferno and Sartre's No Exit
• Satre human freedom
• Nietzsche: Death of God
• St. Augustine. Solution to the Problem of Evil
• The Concept of Metaphysics and Nature
• Inequality's Philosophical Description
• “What Is the Meaning of Life?” in the Works of Gilgamesh and Agamemnon
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, May 31). The meaning of freedom today. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-freedom-today/

"The meaning of freedom today." IvyPanda , 31 May 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-freedom-today/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'The meaning of freedom today'. 31 May.

IvyPanda . 2018. "The meaning of freedom today." May 31, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-freedom-today/.

1. IvyPanda . "The meaning of freedom today." May 31, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-freedom-today/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The meaning of freedom today." May 31, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-freedom-today/.

“The value-free ideal, the autonomy thesis, and cognitive diversity”

• Original Research
• Open access
• Published: 03 July 2024
• Volume 204 , article number  24 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Vincenzo Politi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5753-3196 1  

193 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Some debates about the role of non-epistemic values in science discuss the so-called Value-Free Ideal together with the autonomy thesis, to the point that they may be assumed to be intertwined. As I will argue in this article, the two are independent from one another, are supported by different arguments, and ought to be disentangled. I will also show that the arguments against value-freedom and supporting a value-laden conception of science, are different from the arguments against autonomy, which support democratized science. Moreover, while some of the arguments against autonomy and for democratized science may actually be consistent with value-freedom, they conflict with some philosophical views about the internal diversity of well-designed epistemic communities. This article distinguishes the Value-Free Ideal and the autonomy thesis, as well as their antitheses, and investigates their relations to some of the socio-epistemological models of the social organization of scientific research. Its aim is to make explicit some incompatibilities between different normative frameworks developed in philosophy of science.

Similar content being viewed by others

Critical Theory: Epistemological Content and Method

Gradual de-idealisation and progress in political science: a case study

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The Value-Free Ideal (VFI) is a normative thesis about the epistemic and justificatory phases of science. Critics of VFI support a value-laden conception of science. The autonomy thesis is a normative thesis about the political relation between science and society. Some critics of autonomy support a democratized conception of science. The debate about values in science often seems to assume that VFI and autonomy are necessarily intertwined. As a consequence, it could be assumed that arguments against one of the two theses are also against the other one. In reality, both supporters and critics of VFI may endorse autonomy, while democratized science could be consistent with a value-free image of science. Furthermore, some versions of democratized science may be in conflict with some philosophical views about the internal structure of well-designed epistemic communities.

In this article, I analyze and assess the relations between VFI, the autonomy thesis, the value-laden conception, and democratized science. I then investigate their compatibility with some of the socio-epistemological models of the social organization of scientific research. My aim is to make explicit some conflicts between different normative frameworks developed in philosophy of science.

In the next section, I spell out the central ideas of VFI and the value-laden conception while, in the following section, I spell out the central ideas of the autonomy thesis and democratized science. In the fourth section, I discuss how some philosophers misleadingly conflate VFI and autonomy whereas, as I will show, the relations between the two are more complex. In the fourth section, I focus on the relations between democratized science, on the one hand, and VFI and value-ladenness, on the other. A further problem, discussed in the sixth section, is that some versions of democratized science may conflict with some socio-epistemological normative frameworks, which are in turn compatible with value-freedom and autonomy. I discuss the implications of my analysis for philosophy of science in the concluding section.

Before I continue, I need to specify that, in what follows, I will refer to a number of philosophers who hold similar but nevertheless different views with respect to some normative theses about science. Although I will try to differentiate them as much as possible, the limited space of this article forces me to lump together arguments and views that have been developed independently. This does not necessarily mean to make naive and sweeping generalizations. It means, rather, focusing on what all these proposals have in common. This allows me to analyze the relations between different, and sometimes conflicting, general normative frameworks in philosophy of science.

2 Value-freedom and value-ladenness

The Value-Free Ideal (VFI) states that non-epistemic values (such as moral, social, or political values) must play no role in the so-called internal phases of scientific inquiry, such as during theory appraisal. VFI does not deny that epistemic values – like simplicity, coherence, fruitfulness, and so on (see Kuhn, 1977 ; Laudan, 1984 ; McMullin, 1983 ) – play an important role in the internal phases of research. Nor does it deny the role of non-epistemic values in its external phases – for example, during the agenda setting process or during the dissemination and deployment of results in society. VFI only bars non-epistemic values from the epistemic and justificatory stages of science. Footnote 1

For the supporters of VFI, freedom from non-epistemic values is the mark of epistemic integrity, which is in turn the source of the epistemic authority of science. In this view, trust is bestowed upon science on the basis of its ability to provide objective, undistorted, and ethically neutral factual knowledge. Therefore, proper scientific knowledge must be impartial, free from prejudices and ideologies. It is in virtue of its impartiality that science can be regarded as a remedy, or even as the only remedy, to superstitions, wishful thinking, and obscurantism.

In the wake of the feminist critique of implicit androcentric biases in science, philosophers have begun to speak about the untenability and undesirability of VFI. Arguments about the untenability of VFI maintain that, in practice, the distinctions VFI relies on are too unclear to support its normative conclusions. Rooney ( 1992 ) has challenged the ‘epistemic’ vs. ‘non-epistemic values’ distinction, while Elliott & McKaughan ( 2014 ) have questioned the sharpness of the ‘external’ vs. ‘internal phases’ distinction.

Arguments about the undesirability of VFI attempts to show that not only is freedom from non-epistemic values impractical, but that value-freedom is a bad ideal to begin with. Two of the most prominent of such arguments are that from underdetermination and that from inductive risk . The first is developed from the well-known problem of the underdetermination of theory by data. As Longino ( 1990 ) puts it, there is a ‘logical gap’ between empirical evidence and scientific theories. Traditionally, such a gap has been thought to be bridged by epistemic values only. However, as Longino points out, theory appraisal in the face of the available evidence also requires background assumptions, which contain both epistemic and non-epistemic values. While epistemic values are regarded as the necessary (or ‘constitutive’) features of science, Longino considers scientific rationality, and the role that non-epistemic values play in it, as sensitive to specific contexts and problems. Her ‘contextual empiricism’ is therefore grounded on the idea that science may impact and transform society. This means that it is often impossible to distinguish pure scientific knowledge from its social and political implications. At the same time, for Longino, non-epistemic and contextual factors do not taint scientific objectivity. This is so because, in her view, objectivity is not achieved through detachment but, rather, through intersubjectivity; that is, through the mutual critical engagement of individuals holding different values and having different standpoints.

The premise of the argument from inductive risk (Churchman, 1948 ; Rudner, 1953 ; Douglas, 2009 ) is that, in and by itself, evidence does not speak conclusively either in favor or against a particular conclusion. Scientists, therefore, always face the risk of making erroneous decisions when appraising hypotheses, or when collecting and interpreting data. Such errors may have harmful consequences. Since scientists, like everyone else, have the moral duty of preventing harm, they ought to mitigate the risk of errors by setting the adequate standards of evidence and of their interpretation. These operations require the use of value judgements.

ChoGlueck ( 2018 ) considers the argument from inductive risk as ‘nested’ into the argument from underdetermination. For example, the risk of error in the face of available evidence is a consequence of underdetermination, while making value judgements to mitigate such a risk is a special instance of the use of non-epistemic and contextual values in theory appraisal. Both arguments, furthermore, consider the social and political stakes of scientific knowledge production, as well as scientists’ responsibility towards society. Some philosophers, mainly supporting the inductive risk argument, conceptualize scientific responsibility through the approach of traditional ethics, which attempts to establish what individuals ought to do in order to behave responsibly. Others, such as Longino ( 1990 , 2002 ) and Peters ( 2021 ), regard scientific rationality and responsibility as resting with a pluralistic scientific community, rather than with individuals. Despite their differences, these two approaches can also be regarded as nested, since responsible individuals are necessary for responsible collectives.

As pointed out by Havstad ( 2022 ), arguments against VFI, such as that from inductive risk, support the conclusion for which non-epistemic values have a legitimate place in the internal stages of research. These kinds of arguments led, in the past few decades, to a new value-laden conception of science (from now on, ‘Value-Ladenness’). Rather than being a unified thesis, Value-Ladenness is a collection of different views ranging from the reactions against value-freedom to the formulation of more positive ideals, such as Harding’s ( 1995 ) standpoint theory, Kourany’s ( 2010 ) socially responsible science, and Brown’s ( 2020 ) ideal of moral imagination in science.

Supporters of VFI may respond to Value-Ladenness in two ways. First, by denying that scientists ought to make value judgements to mitigate the risk of error. This argument relies on the idea that scientists’ job is to communicate uncertainties to policy makers, not to make decisions on their own (Levi, 1960 ; Betz, 2013 ; Henschen, 2021 ; Carrier, 2022 ).

Second, by attempting to show how the principles of liberal democracy justify, or even entail, VFI. Du Bois ( 1898 ) argued that value-free scientific knowledge can be used by everybody in a democracy, but not misused to push specific political agendas (see also Bright, 2018 ). Different versions of this argument are also maintained, among the others, by Levi ( 1960 ) and Betz ( 2013 ). The argument of the ‘political legitimacy’ of VFI is rarely tackled by the supporters of Value-Ladenness, one of the most notable exceptions being Lusk ( 2021 ), who directly responds to it. It is important to stress that the view for which democracy justifies or implies VFI is different from the view for which science ought to be democratized.

3 Autonomy and democratization

The Autonomy Thesis (from now on, ‘Autonomy’) states that science must preserve its autonomy from social and political interference. It is a normative thesis regulating the ‘social contract’ between science and society. Footnote 2 Supporters of Autonomy believe that attempts to direct scientific research ‘from the outside’ compromise scientific progress and are therefore unacceptable. Autonomy must be maintained to guarantee what Berlin ( 1969 ) defines as ‘negative’ and ‘positive freedom’ that, in the case of science, amounts to freedom from political ideologies and government control, and freedom to steer research towards the ends and with the methods deemed relevant by the community of experts. Footnote 3

Apart from specifying the kinds of freedom Autonomy guarantees to science, it is also important to discuss their degrees . Science is an institutionalized organization amidst other institutionalized organizations, and embedded in a larger society which provides funding for its very existence. Autonomy does not claim that science could or ought to exist irrespectively or even without society: the ‘social contract’ aims at regulating the relations between science and society, not at eliminating them. Nor does Autonomy endorse the rather implausible view for which science could be completely detached from society. Scientists, like everyone else, are influenced by their social, cultural, political, and sometimes even ideological milieu. However, ‘influence’ is different from ‘control’, in as much as the former does not determine the outcome of a process as the latter does. The descriptive claim that scientists may, and often are, influenced by society does not lend support to the normative conclusion for which science ought to be directly controlled by the government or by the supporters of an ideology.

In the past few decades, the traditional contract between science and society has been challenged. As a result, a new conception has emerged, for which science ought to be aligned to the needs of society, and welcome the mutual engagement between scientists and other societal actors, such as policy makers, private stakeholders and citizens. The premises of the philosophical argument supporting what I will refer to as Democratized Science can be summarized as follows:

DS.1 - Demarcation problem : because science is value laden, we need to find a principled way to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate values in science; this issue is also known as “the new demarcation problem” (Holman & Wilholt, 2022 ).

DS.2 - Demarcating principle : non-epistemic values are legitimate insofar as they are democratically endorsed (Kitcher, 2001 , 2011 ; Inteman 2015; Schroeder, 2017 ; Lusk, 2020 ).

DS.3 - Social responsibility : scientists have the duty not only to prevent harm, but also to contribute to society (Kourany, 2010 ; Brown, 2020 ). The more socially responsible science is, the more the public will trust it (Kitcher, 2011 ).

DS.4 - Democratized objectivity : objectivity and robust knowledge is achieved through the integration of scientists’ expertise with citizens’ values, standpoints, and ‘local’ expertise.

Three considerations are in order. First of all, arguments for Democratized Science have been developed in different contexts, such as in STS or in the science policy literature, and for different motivations. In this article I focus on the philosophy of science literature, in which there is a strong link between Democratized Science and values, to the point that many proposals – such as Kourany’s, Intemann’s, or Brown’s – provide arguments for both Value-Ladenness and Democratized Science.

Second, as already discussed in the previous section, the argument from inductive risk may be regarded as ‘nested’ into the argument from underdetermination. By contrast, the argument for Democratized Science is not nested into any of those two; rather, it extends some of their aspects. Footnote 4 Democratized Science is not limited to the statement for which values have a role in science, but it also provides a way to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate values. It supports a wider conception of scientists’ responsibility, going beyond preventionist accounts and including more remedial dimensions. For supporters of Democratized Science, furthermore, the achievement of interpersonal scientific objectivity is not only a scientists’ affair.

Third, although they extend Value-Ladenness, there is one crucial aspect in which the relation between Democratized Science and Value-Ladenness is not clear, namely the issue of when and how (democratically legitimate) values ought to play a role in research. As I will discuss in Sect. 5, the compatibility between Value-Ladenness and Democratized Science depends on how one interprets democratization on this issue.

4 Value-freedom and autonomy

From what it has been said so far, it appears that VFI and Autonomy are about different things, have different aims, and are supported by different arguments. VFI prescribes how scientific reasoning ought to proceed, Autonomy regulates the relations between science and society. Nevertheless, sometimes VFI and Autonomy risk being misleadingly conflated. To be clear: the problem is not that, in some cases, VFI (or Value-Ladenness) can be used in favor of Autonomy (or Democratized Science). The problem is treating VFI and Autonomy as being necessarily linked, or even as the same thesis.

For Hugh Lacey ( 1999 ), for example, VFI is constituted by three main ideas: the Galilean idea of impartiality , grounded on the metaphysical divorce of facts and values; the methodological/epistemological idea of neutrality , for which inferences and justification are guided only by empirical data, and cannot favor any particular value outlook over others; and the idea of autonomy , which, as Lacey himself defines it, is a political thesis science and society. He then proposes his own version of VFI, which includes some modifications to impartiality and neutrality, but which deems autonomy as untenable. In his view, the ‘core phase’ of science includes different steps, such as the adoption of methodological strategies and theory appraisal, and traditional philosophy of science has developed context-free norms for both. However, he accepts the idea that social and political values may guide the external phase of science as well as the adoption of methodological strategies, while defending the value-freedom of theory appraisal. This amounts to the contemporary version of VFI, which admits the use of non-epistemic values in the external phases of inquiry only. In the end, however, it appears like Lacey separates what he did not need to mix together to begin with, that is VFI and Autonomy. Indeed, it is even questionable whether Lacey needs to reject Autonomy, or even to talk about Autonomy at all, in order to present his modified version of VFI.

Douglas ( 2009 :ch.3) argues that there are two ways to defend VFI against the argument from inductive risk. The first is to follow Levi ( 1960 ) and others in claiming that scientists do not have to make choices under uncertainties, but only to communicate uncertainties to the relevant decision makers. The second is by describing the scientific community as insulated from the rest of society, as Kuhn ( 1962 ) suggested. It is easy to see why the insulation of the scientific community can be regarded as a defense of VFI: in some versions of such a view, the scientific community is considered as autonomous and as internally driven by epistemic values only. Yet, such a conjunction is not necessary: a scientific community could be autonomous and as internally driven by both epistemic and non-epistemic values. Douglas does not consider this option and she even refers to a “ classic Kuhn-Levi view ” (Douglas, 2009 :64, my emphasis ), thus conflating a methodological argument about the role of values in science with a political view about the science-society relations. Surprisingly enough, in a more recent work, she openly defends scientists’ autonomy. After analyzing the relation between autonomy and social responsibility, and recovering some early insights of the Society for Freedom in Science , she concludes that “[c]urtailing the freedom of scientists through central planning is not a good way to get at the societal responsibilities of scientists” (Douglas, 2021 :83).

Perhaps, neither Lacey nor Douglas are really talking about Autonomy. Rather, their actual target seems to be scientists’ disinterestedness and detachment from social concerns. That scientists have such a lack of interest towards social problems is of course debatable. Lacey and Douglas, however, are not criticizing actual scientists, but some particular ideals of how scientists ought to conduct research. The problem is that the ideal of scientists’ disinterestedness and detachment is not necessarily related to the political autonomy of science. It is possible to imagine a scientific community permeated by social and political concerns, yet autonomous from political pressure (and this is actually what Douglas seems to point at).

Hicks ( 2011 ) targets the actual autonomy thesis. They argue that the philosophical and ideological background of Autonomy is the libertarian tradition in political and economic thought, for which the state ought to play a minimal and non-intrusive role (for example, it should establish and implement laws to maintain order and to prevent harms), and it should not interfere with individuals’ freedom. They then criticize such a philosophical background with the aim of showing that “The ideal of value-free science is not, in itself, value free” (Hicks, 2011 :1236). It is not clear how Hicks ends up talking about VFI in the context of a critique of the philosophical presuppositions of Autonomy. In their view, Autonomy is a thesis involving the set of value-free standards for producing good science. However, this is a non sequitur: it is possible to accept the idea that the state should not interfere with science, in a laissez-faire fashion, while also accepting the idea that science is engaged in the production of (value-laden) ‘goods’, to be put in the market of ideas (and not only). While examining the hidden ideologies of some normative frameworks is commendable, what one could contest to Hicks is treating Autonomy and VFI as the same thesis, to the point that it may be difficult to understand what their actual target is.

The idea that science should proceed autonomously with respect to social and political planning could be interpreted as suggesting that scientists ought also to be free of social concerns and responsibilities, their only duty amounting to the production of impartial, reliable, and value-free knowledge. Ultimately, however, autonomy does not mean, or imply, freedom from responsibility. Quite the contrary: being uncoerced is regarded as one of the necessary conditions for the attribution of responsibility to an agent (in other words, we would not attribute responsibility to someone who could not have done otherwise because of, for example, external constraints or threats). If science has to be socially responsible, and if responsibility requires autonomy, then autonomy is necessary for a socially responsible science, as Douglas ( 2021 ) seems to suggest. In other words, instead of absolving scientists of their social responsibilities, Autonomy can actually be viewed as the precondition for a socially responsible science.

Not only VFI and Autonomy are two separate theses but, historically, Autonomy has been endorsed by supporters of both VFI and Value-ladenness. For example, even though they held opposite views on the issue of values in science, Michael Polanyi and Robert Merton both defended the autonomy of the scientific enterprise. For Polanyi ( 1958 ), science possesses a ‘tacit’ dimension that includes intuitions, creative acts, but also passions and unspoken commitment to social and moral values. His work is regarded as one of the earliest rejection of the logical-positivist image of the detached and disinterested scientist capable of applying the universal scientific method to get at objective knowledge. Therefore, he may be considered as an early critic of VFI. At the same time, he regarded the projects for the political control of science as ill-conceived for a number of reasons. To begin with, such projects are based on the erroneous idea that the state is the sole representative of citizens’ interests and welfare, which is debatable, if not questionable. As Polanyi explains, moreover, the outcomes of ‘politicized science’ are not assessed by scientific experts, but by the current government, with the risk that only the results confirming the dominant political views will be deemed as ‘scientific’. Rather than scientific knowledge, therefore, the politicization of science would foster an anti-scientific attitude. For Polanyi, science and other institutions should interact yet maintain their autonomy, following a ‘polycentric’ model of society (Polanyi, 1951 , 1962 ; see also Mullins, 2021 ). More generally, following Polanyi’s insights, it is possible to conceive a scientific community that is indeed free from external political control and yet, at the same time, internally driven by non-epistemic values (in virtue of some of the very arguments against VFI).

Merton notoriously held a rather value-free image of science, which, in his view, ought to be driven only by what appear like epistemic values such as, for example, ‘disinterestedness’. Yet, like Polanyi, he also endorsed Autonomy. He believed that impartial and value-free science did not require social and political control but, rather, it represented a model to which democracies should be inspired by and conform to. On discussing the cases of Nazi experiments and fascist totalitarian regimes, Merton argued for the necessity of scientific autonomy and concluded that “The social stability of science can be ensured only if adequate defenses are set up against changes imposed from outside the scientific fraternity itself” (Merton, 1938 :328). Ultimately, in Merton’s view, the autonomy of science guarantees democratic freedom, and must be therefore preserved (see also Hartl, 2021 ).

Of course, both Polanyi and Merton worked at a time when the fear of totalitarian governments was still strong in Europe and the US. Contemporary critics of Autonomy, of course, do not argue in favor of a central social planning of science like that instantiated by authoritarian regimes. As already explained, they propose models for democratizing science. Nevertheless, this section has shown how the arguments for VFI and Autonomy are independent, with the latter being endorsed by both supporters and critics of VFI.

5 Value-ladenness and democratization

As in the case of VFI and Autonomy, the relations between Value-Ladenness and Democratized Science are not straightforward. As defined in Sect. 3, one of the premises of the argument for Democratized Science is the recognition that science is value-laden. This does not mean, however, that Value-Ladenness in and by itself implies Democratized Science. Even though they have to do with values in science, in fact, Value-Ladenness and Democratized Science are supported by different arguments.

As recently pointed out by Schroeder ( 2022a ), arguments about the role of non-epistemic values in science can be either ethical or political. Ethical arguments are developed from an individualistic perspective, in the sense that they focus on the rules that an individual moral agent ought to follow. Political arguments, by contrast, are developed from a collective and institutional perspective. Not only are ethical and political arguments different, but they may also lead to incompatible conclusions. For example, what would be deemed as an unethical behavior for an individual could be deemed as permissible for a collective, such as an institutionalized organization or a nation. Schroeder also stresses that, in the context of the philosophy of science debate on values, the two kinds of arguments rely on different methods: ethical arguments rely on the conceptual analysis of idealized norms, whereas political arguments, which put a major emphasis on the analysis of the social context, often require the integration of empirical studies. It follows that ethical arguments in favor of Value-Ladenness are not necessarily compatible with the political arguments in favor of Democratized Science.

It may even be the case that arguments for Value-Ladenness could be used in support of Autonomy. For Douglas, a closer look at the uncertainties endemic in several internal stages of research and at how they are mitigated via value judgments should lead to a re-examination of the role of science and society. This, in turn, would help us question “the presupposition that science is a distinct and autonomous enterprise developed by a community of scientists largely in isolation from public questions and concerns” (Douglas, 2009 :5). As already mentioned in the previous section, however, Douglas mainly challenges scientists’ (supposed) isolation from public questions and concerns, not the political autonomy of science, which she actually defends in her (2021). In her view, in fact, it is the scientist qua scientist on her own that makes value judgments in order to prevent societal harm. Even though she is moved by a deep concern over the implications of science in society, sometimes Douglas appears to grant a sort of ‘moral authority’ to scientists, while also restating their epistemic authority. She admits that “elucidating the proper roles and proper values for science is part of what makes science authoritative, rather than undermining the authority of science” (Douglas, 2021 :31).

Most of the time, then, Douglas could be read as defending the idea that the source of value judgments lies within individual scientists, who can therefore be regarded as autonomous from political pressures, yet concerned with society. In some of her works, however, she appears closer to the kind of mutual engagement between scientists and citizens promoted by Democratized Science (see, for example, Douglas, 2005 , 2017 ). For example, in her (2005) article, she claims that there are at least three ways in which citizens may give their inputs in technical assessments and analyses, namely: in framing the problems to be addressed and the range of potential solutions to consider; in providing local knowledge; and in providing values to weigh uncertainties and the potential consequences of errors. While the first two ‘points of entry’ for citizens in science may be regarded as involving the external phases of inquiry, the third seems to advocate for citizens to have an active role in the more internal phases. Douglas specifies:

“This last point of input is both crucial and often overlooked. Because values are needed to shape analyses, whose values are important. Traditionally, the values have been both hidden and those of the experts making the judgments. Many experts think that citizens are unable to understand the technical complexities of analyses, much less provide guidance at points of expert judgment. Yet the examples below suggest ways in which citizens can do precisely that, with the result that experts think the analyses are strengthened and the citizenry trusts the study’s results” (Douglas 2005 : 158–159).

For the rest of her paper, Douglas provides examples that seem to support Democratized Science and attempts to develop prescriptive norms for strengthening the role of the public into science. From the last two sections, in short, Douglas emerges as defending Value-ladenness but with oscillating if not ambiguous views about Autonomy and Democratized Science.

A similar ambiguity can be found in the work of other philosophers supporting Value-Ladenness. For example, Longino ( 1990 ) argues about the cognitive benefits deriving from values diversity within the scientific community. Such a plurality of values, however, needs to be ‘managed’. To ensure the harmonization of different individual preferences and values and, therefore, the achievement of objectivity through intersubjectivity, Longino proposes the so-called ‘value management ideal’. In this view, the practice of an ideal scientific community ought to be constrained by four criteria: publicly recognized venues for scientific disputes, uptake of criticisms, shared standards, and tempered equality of intellectual authority. Stated in this way, Longino’s value management ideal represents the scientific community as the locus of the plurality of values, with scientists being the only moral agents involved in their harmonization. To say that scientific disputes have to take place in publicly recognised venues, in fact, does not mean assigning any active role to the public. In the same way, the criticisms that must be uptaken may come from the scientists themselves, as in the case of disagreements internal to the scientific community. In short, value management may be a scientific community’s internal affair.

In other works, however, Longino proposes to ‘open up’ the scientific community to public scrutiny and to criticisms coming from outside the scientific community (see, for example, Longino, 2002 ). As with Douglas, it is possible to interpret some of Longino’s works as supporting Value-Ladenness and as compatible with Autonomy, while other works may be read, to some extent, as an endorsement of Democratized Science. No matter where Longino and Douglas stand when it comes to Autonomy and Democratized Science, it is important to show how some of their arguments for Value-Ladenness do not imply Democratized Science and may even be compatible with Autonomy.

It may also be the case that some versions of Democratized Science actually conflict with Value-Ladenness. Some arguments for Value-Ladenness, like Longino’s contextual empiricism, are a call for the plurality of values and standpoints in science. Instead, by focussing on the consensus as the (ideal) end result of democratic deliberation, some supporters of Democratized Science seem to auspicate, if not an erasure, at least a resolution of value pluralism into a sort of ‘value monism’ achieved through democratic mechanisms. Schroeder ( 2017 ) would even go as far as claiming that scientists ought to adopt democratically held values even when they conflict with their own. Prima facie, this may look like a way of depriving scientists of their rights of opinion and freedom of choice. Schroeder argues, however, that although scientists have the same moral obligations as everybody else, they are not like anyone else. In virtue of the special place they have in society, scientists may even enjoy fewer rights than the rest of citizens. The situation would be analogous to that of a Prime Minister who, as a representative of the state, has to accept a law passed by the democratically elected parliament even if she personally disagrees with its content. If, on the one hand, this view could be interpreted as overburdening scientists, on the other hand, Schroeder maintains that the benefits for the public as a whole surpass the loss of scientists’ political freedom.

While, as discussed above, Value-Ladenness does not imply Democratized Science, Schroeder shows how a political argument in support of Democratized Science actually conflicts with the individualistic ethical arguments in support of Value-Ladenness. At the same time, this line of argument is problematic, as it appears to simply suggest that scientists’ values ought to be substituted with the values upheld by the civil society, which would be more ‘politically legitimate’ than those upheld by the scientific community. That something has been legitimated by a democratic procedure, however, does not mean that it is also the right thing to do.

One of the issues with the various proposals for Democratized Science is that it is not always clear which theory of democracy they rely on. Different conceptions of democracy, fairness, representation, and consensus, in fact, may lead to different versions of Democratized Science. For instance, Kitcher ( 2001 , 2011 ) develops the ideal of Well-Ordered Science (WOS) – which can be considered as a version of Democratized Science– from a different perspective than Schroeder’s. For Kitcher, in fact, simply following the position upheld by the majority corresponds to a ‘vulgar’ version of democratic principles. He therefore characterizes the democratic process that ought to govern the science-society relations in terms of an ‘engaged conversation’ between experts and tutored members of the public. The latter ought to represent the values and interests of every social class and group, including the well-being of future generations. They have to be tutored by the experts, mainly about the available research lines and methods, because their opinions and preferences ought not to be uninformed (otherwise WOS would relapse into a form of vulgar democracy that does not recognise the existence of expertise). At the same time, however, scientists have the duty to take into account the views of the tutored representatives of the public (otherwise WOS would relapse into a form of elitism). Scientists and tutored representatives of the public should act like the ideal deliberators theorized by Rawls ( 1999 ). Their ideal conversation may go on for a long time, or even forever. Its end result is not the victory of a brute majority, but the finding of a common ground capable of satisfying everybody’s values and needs and, above all, to respect and to reserve a fair treatment to the marginalized minorities.

Closer to Kitcher’s view is the so-called ‘aims approach’. In this view, value judgments about the aims of a research must be set through democratic mechanisms that guarantee the representation of the interests of societal stakeholders. Moreover, scientists must be transparent about the values they use in making methodological decisions. Only those values that advance the stakeholders’ interests will be considered legitimate. In short, the aims approach amounts to the idea that value judgements in science are legitimate insofar as “they promote democratically endorsed epistemological and social aims” (Intemann, 2015 :219; see also Intemann & de Melo-Martín, 2010 , Elliott & Resnick, 2014 , Elliott, 2017 ).

Unlike Schroeder’s proposal, Kitcher’s WOS and the aims approach allow scientists to be part of the democratic deliberation process. They also put a major emphasis on the needs of representation for the values and needs of minorities. Nevertheless, they still hold consensus-based decisions as the mark of democratization. Such a view could be contested. For instance, Rolin ( 2021 ) argues that the consensus achieved through deliberative procedures may actually end up reinforcing injustice and inequality. In fact, minorities risk not to be taken into consideration, or to become even more marginalized, if the democratic mechanism in place is designed to award the majority. For these reasons, she challenges the theories of democracy informing Democratised Science and she advocates for the kind of scientific research pursued by ‘social intellectual movements’. Moreover, Hilligardt ( 2023 ) argues that requiring science to use only democratically held values does not consider the importance of ‘partisan’ science, such as that pursued by politicized research foundations or think tanks. This kind of research clearly does not reflect the values and interests of a democratic majority and yet it may contribute in important ways to both the epistemic aims of scientific research and to social progress. Both research conducted by social intellectual movements and partisan science are animated by the dissatisfaction with the democratically established status quo and aim at creating dissensus, rather than consensus, in order to widen the pool of values and alternatives. This kind of argument shows how it is possible to reject Autonomy without endorsing Democratised Science.

Apart from questioning the very political theories it relies on, there are other problems with Democratized Science. For instance, Lusk ( 2021 ) maintains that the connection with Democratized Science and values is often left inarticulate. On the one hand, scientists and the public may agree on the pursuitworthiness of some general aims, but not on the values to be held. On the other hand, a shared set of values, by itself, is not sufficient to guide methodological choices, which are therefore left either to further debate or to scientists who, under this respect, would remain autonomous.

My criticisms of Democratized Science, especially in the version of Kitcher’s WOS and the aims approach, are complementary to Lusk’s. Although both WOS and the aims approach concern values in science, it is not entirely clear whether they are compatible with an image of scientific research as internally value-laden. As already explained, VFI forbids the intrusion of values in the internal and justificatory phases of science, but it does not deny them a role in the external phases. One of the premises of Democratized Science is that science is value-laden. What many supporters of Democratized Science do not specify, however, is at which stages of research such value-ladenness is encountered. Indeed, for WOS and the aims approach, the setting of research aims and priorities ought to be settled democratically, through scientists’ engagement with the public. Fixing aims and priorities, however, is part of the so-called external phases of science. Since WOS and the aims approach do not make evident the role of value judgments in the internal phases of science, they could even be interpreted as compatible with VFI, or as implicitly accepting it.

It is possible to respond to this argument in at least two different ways. First, as briefly mentioned in Sect. 2, some philosophers challenge the sharpness of the ‘external’ vs. ‘internal’ distinction. For example, Elliott and McKaughan ( 2014 ) maintain that value-laden decisions taken in the so-called external phases may filter down into the internal phases and alter theory appraisal. In their views, epistemic and non-epistemic values, as well as internal and external phases, interact in complex ways. This is also why Elliott ( 2017 :ch.2) speaks about Kitcher ( 2001 ) as being interested in research agenda setting and as someone who contributes to debate about the value-ladenness of science.

Second, even though it is true that Kitcher ( 2001 ) is mainly concerned with agenda setting, in his (2011) he distinguishes three steps in scientific research that require the democratic dialogue of ideal deliberators: the allocation of resources to significant research projects, the choice of research methods, and the translation of scientific results into social policies for the benefits of society at large. The second step Kitcher speaks about belongs to the internal phase of science. However, democratizing the internal stages of science poses a whole different set of problems, as I will discuss in the next section.

6 Cognitive diversity, values, and democracy

VFI and Value-Ladenness are not the only normative theses about how science ought to be conducted. In the past few decades, in fact, social epistemologists have developed formal models of epistemically efficient scientific communities.

Years before his recent works on WOS, Philip Kitcher developed one of the first of such models, with the aim of showing how to solve the “mismatch between the demands of individual rationality and those of collective (or community) rationality” (Kitcher 1990 :6). From the community perspective, it is rational to keep many research options alive, even when it is known that one of them is more likely to succeed: in the long run, less likely methods may still produce useful results. From an individual perspective, however, no scientist would voluntarily choose to work on approaches that are not very likely to succeed. In Kitcher’s model of the ‘distribution of cognitive labor’, scientists are not driven only by epistemic reasons. Rather, they are self-interested individuals seeking their own profit, which may come in terms of peer recognition, prestige, and career advancement. Their choice is not determined by the probability of success of a particular research method, but by the probability of their own success. In Kitcher’s model, for some individuals it is actually more rational not to follow the majority of their colleagues in choosing the method with highest probability of success, opting for the one with a lower probability. In a less crowded and less competitive sub-community, in fact, making a relevant contribution could be easier and faster. Self-interest and competition help the scientific community to maintain a healthy internal pluralism, thus serving collective epistemic purposes. In this way, individual and collective rationality are harmonized.

Kitcher’s model has influenced the emergence of more sophisticated socio-epistemological formal models of the scientific community. Some computer-based models of the social organization of science, such as the epistemic network (Zollman, 2007 , 2010 ) or the ‘epistemic landscape’ (Weisberg & Muldoon, 2009 ), can be regarded as expanding on Kitcher’s framework while attempting to overcome some of its limitations and questionable presuppositions (see also Weisberg, 2010 ).

In the intentions of their developers, these models could provide policy advice on how to design optimal scientific communities (Avin, 2018 ; Petrovich & Viola, 2018 ). However, not every philosopher is convinced about the possibility of using formal models as a basis for making policy decisions. Some of them argue that such models do not represent adequately their target (that is, real scientific communities) and should therefore be intended as having other, more speculative functions instead (see, for example, Martini & Fernández Pinto 2017 ; Frey & Šešelja, 2018 ; Thicke, 2020 ; Aydinonat et al., 2021 ; Šešelja 2020 ). Although the question of the use of formal socio-epistemological models in science policy is not settled, it still makes sense to assess whether the epistemological norms they provide are compatible with some of the other normative frameworks discussed so far.

To begin with, these models appear to miss a ‘moral dimension’. As already pointed out by Politi ( 2021 ), in formal socio-epistemological models, the epistemic objective the agents are trying to achieve is assumed to be a piece of ‘significant truth’. While the notion of significant truth is clearly value-laden, the models do not represent how scientists establish and assess significance: the significant epistemic objective is a ‘given’, which has been fixed and accepted before individual agents begin to pursue it. Once the objective is fixed, the agents make their choices for epistemic reasons (i.e., the desire of discovering the truth), or for selfish reasons (i.e., the desire of recognition and success), or a mixture of both. Their moral and social value-judgments, as well as their way of dealing with the risk of error, are not represented.

The missing moral dimension of the formal models of the scientific community is evident in the way in which Weisberg and Muldoon ( 2009 ) describe their own model. After defining the ‘peaks’ of the epistemic landscape as pieces of significant truths that the scientists/agents are attempting to discover, they feel compelled to add:

“An important and foundational debate in philosophy of science concerns the source of scientific significance. A classical perspective holds that some facts have intrinsic scientific significance. A radical alternative holds that all judgments of scientific significance are merely the result of dominant ideologies and other political and social forces that influence scientists and scientific consumers as much as anyone else. Moderate positions acknowledge both the social origin of much of what we take to be important in scientific knowledge, but also that some questions and answers have significance internal to the goals and structures of science. Our model makes no commitment about the source of significance judgments. It only requires that the community of scientists working on the same topic would make the same or nearly the same judgments about significance ” (Weisberg & Muldoon, 2009 :229, my italics ).

Such judgments are made only in the agenda setting phase. Therefore the Weisberg-Muldoon model, as well as other models, are consistent with the view thatnon-epistemic values may play a role during the external phases of scientific research (which these models do not represent), but not in its internal stages (which the models represent). This means that formal socio-epistemological models are consistent with, and maybe even implicitly support, VFI.

Politi ( 2021 ) argues that one way to respond to the charge of value-freedom is to claim that, even though these models do not represent the value-ladenness of the internal stages of scientific research, they could do so potentially. The same Kitcher recognises that seeking personal gains is only one of the many possible drivers of the distribution of cognitive labor. He does not exclude that collective and individual rationality could be bridged by other factors, such as “Perseverance, personal investment, personal and national loyalties, and devotion to political causes” (Kitcher, 1990 :18). Perhaps it is possible to ‘correct’ the models by adding further parameters or functions, although one may wonder whether and how their introduction may alter the distribution of cognitive labor.

To explain this point, Politi uses the following example. Let’s imagine that the aim of a project in the field of agricultural science is to find a way to produce more food in an underdeveloped country suffering from hunger issues. Let’s assume that there are two possible research methods to reach such an objective: M₁ investigates biotechnological venues for the production of genetically modified food, M₂ analyzes the characteristics of the local land in order to develop and implement better agricultural methods. Let’s assume, as Kitcher would, that the likelihood of success of M₁ is higher than that of M₂, and that all the scientists involved in the pursuit of the same objective already know that. In Kitcher’s original model, after calculating the best way to increase their own expected utility, the majority of scientists would choose M₁ (biotechnological innovation), with some of them opting for M₂ (study of the local land and agricultural practices). In this way, the community as a whole can maintain a beneficial and fruitful pluralism. In its current form, Kitcher’s model is consistent with VFI. It is however possible to imagine the scientists of the example being driven by (among other things) moral or social values. For instance, not all of those choosing M₁ may do so for the desire of professional recognition, or for the financial reward coming from the private biotechnological sector. Some or even the majority of them may choose M₁ because they genuinely aim at providing a fast solution to a pressing problem. Similarly, not all of those choosing M₂ do so for personal convenience, many of them could simply follow their moral and political persuasions about the importance and long-term benefits of sustainable agriculture. Representing the scientific community as driven by epistemic, selfish and moral reasons maybe could result in a different distribution of cognitive labor. Yet, even though it is not clear how it would translate in the mathematical language of Kitcher’s original analytical framework, it is possible to conceive a value-laden representation of the internal dynamics of the scientific community.

From what it has been said so far, socio-epistemological models may be read as implicitly supporting VFI or as in need to be integrated with Value-Ladenness. Since, as shown in previous sections, Value-Ladenness may support Autonomy, and Democratized Science may conflict with Value-Ladenness, whether formal models of the scientific community support VFI or Value-Ladenness is independent from their relation with Democratized Science, which must therefore be considered as a separate issue.

As discussed in the last section, many arguments for Democratized Science may be read as targeting the external phases of scientific research, especially the agenda setting (and, for this reason, they are compatible with VFI). Formal socio-epistemological models are about methodological choices at the internal stages of scientific research (and they are also compatible with VFI). However, some versions of Democratized Science, like Kitcher’s ( 2011 ), target the internal phases of scientific research too. It is therefore legitimate to wonder: how much and up to which point should the internal stage of research be democratized? Moreover, could a full democratization of the internal stage of research lead to undesirable consequences?

To answer these questions, let’s go back to Politi’s example. This time, unlike the scenario in which scientists choose their research strategy on the basis of a mixture of epistemic and selfish reasons (as in Kitcher’s original model), and unlike the scenario in which they are also driven by value judgements (as in Politi’s proposed amendment of the model), let’s assume that, once the epistemic objective has been democratically set, a conversation about methodological choices begins among mutually engaged ideal deliberators. It cannot be ruled out that the outcome of such a democratic conversation would be the rejection of M₁, that is, of the method with the highest likelihood of success. It is possible, in fact, that the citizens’ representatives agree that the field of biotechnological innovation is driven by private and financial interests, that its impacts on the land and natural environment are too unpredictable, and that such impacts may even be dangerous for the local population. For this reason, they deliberate that the only acceptable method is M₂, which is also less likely to succeed. Choosing M₂ over M₁, in short, runs against the collective rationality of the scientific community. In a less extreme scenario, the deliberators may decide to keep both approaches alive, but to allocate the majority of scientists to M₂, while keeping only a few them to develop something democratically acceptable with M₁. Even this scenario, however, would lead to a suboptimal, if not inadequate, distribution of cognitive labor.

In short, socio-epistemological models seem not only to be compatible with VFI, but also to be incompatible with Democratized Science. This incompatibility makes it difficult to understand what Kitcher’s position on these issues is. When he talks about the distribution of cognitive labor, he claims that the internal diversity of the scientific community has to be preserved, even at the cost of exploiting scientists’ self-regarding motivations. When he talks about WOS, he claims that a democratic conversation has to be had about many phases of scientific research, including methodological choices. Yet the outcome of such a democratic conversation may hamper the epistemically beneficial diversity maintained by an optimal distribution of cognitive labor. As in previous cases, the point is not to force Kitcher to tell us where he stands. The point is to analyze the clash among philosophical normative frameworks for science.

Perhaps one may get out of this impasse by stressing, as Kitcher would do, that the ideal conversation has to be had between experts, on the one hand, and tutored representatives, on the other. Apart from explaining the virtues and potentialities of different theories and approaches, the tutoring process could also be about the distribution of cognitive labor and the importance of hedging the scientific community’s bets by keeping different research strategies alive. One may fear, however, that in this way the representatives are just tutored to make the same decisions that the experts would make on their own. In this way, one may wonder what the ideal deliberators are supposed to ‘deliberate’ about, apart from leaving the scientific community to distribute its own cognitive labor.

Another possibility is to bite the bullet and just accept that the optimal distribution of cognitive labor could be compromised by democratic deliberation about some internal stages of scientific research. Such an acceptance presupposes that the respect of democratic mechanisms is more valuable than collective scientific rationality. In this way, a political argument about the relation between science and society would trump some epistemological considerations about the necessity of methodological pluralism.

Kitcher’s work is exemplary of some tensions between different normative frameworks in philosophy of science. On the one hand, social epistemologists do not seem to reflect explicitly on whether their models of the scientific community support VFI or Autonomy, or conflict with Democratized Science. On the other hand, Schroeder ( 2022b ) has pointed out the potential tensions between epistemic, ethic, and political dimensions in so-called ‘citizen science’ programs, which are a way of realizing Democratized Science. In his view, these tensions call for some difficult to make trade offs, even though he does not enter in details about what the potential results of such trade offs could be. What I have shown in this section expands on Schroeder’s observations. I have argued, in fact, that democratic deliberation about methodological choices are in conflict with socio-epistemological normative frameworks about cognitive pluralism. Such a conflict cannot be solved with a trade off: either we exclude democratic deliberation and restate scientists’ autonomy in some internal steps of research, or we give up cognitive pluralism. No guidance is offered on what to choose.

7 Concluding remarks: incompatible norms, incompatible philosophies of science?

In this article, I have argued that VFI and Autonomy are two different normative theses, and that Autonomy could be endorsed by both the supporters and the critics of VFI. I have also argued that, on the one hand, some versions of Democratised Science may conflict with Value-Ladenness and be compatible with VFI; while, on the other hand, those versions of Democratised Science that do not conflict with Value-Ladenness are incompatible with the socio-epistemological models about the internal structure of well-designed epistemic communities.

The complex relations between these different normative frameworks are often overlooked in the philosophy of science literature. Some philosophers, for example, conflate value-freedom with Autonomy. Others do not notice that, although both Value-Ladenness and Autonomy are concerned with the issue of values in science, the former does not imply the latter, which, in turn, may conflict with some views about values in the internal phases of science. Social epistemologists seem to end up developing idealized models of the scientific community that are consistent with, or even supporting, VFI and Autonomy. There are also philosophers who maintain ambiguous positions with respect to these issues, in the sense that their works are open to multiple interpretations about how they conceive the relations among different normative views about science.

This situation is symptomatic of the fact that some debates in philosophy of science run in parallel, with little or no critical interaction. The most glaring case is the debate about the formal models of the scientific communities, which mainly focuses on their adequacy and functions, but which shows scarce concern for the image of science these models support more or less implicitly. But it is also the case for the debate about the use of democratic values, which is growing separate from the debate about value-ladenness. In short, philosophers have developed different and sometimes incompatible normative frameworks, without tackling the problem of how to choose between them. Since conceptual clarity is necessary to solve some philosophical problems, the critical map of the different normative theses about science presented in this article may be a first step for guiding philosophers in such an endeavor.

Different philosophers have developed different classifications of the kinds of values that may play a role in science. Some have distinguished between ‘cognitive’ and ‘non-cognitive values’ (Longino, 1996 ), or between ‘constitutive’ and ‘contextual values’ (Longino, 1990 , 2002 ). Kitcher ( 2011 ) distinguishes between ‘broad’, ‘cognitive’, and ‘probative schemes of values’. For the sake of brevity, in this article I speak of VFI as an ideal about the role of ‘epistemic’ and ‘non-epistemic values’, with the previous being those values traditionally accepted as good scientific standards and believed to be conducive to objective knowledge, and the latter being those traditionally associated with moral, social, and political standpoints.

In this article, I mainly focus on the issue of the political control of science. Of course, many would want science to be autonomous not only from political agendas, but also from other external intrusions, such as private financial interests. However, those who argue for the autonomy of science from corporations may also argue in favor of a stronger control of the state on science (this would be the case, for example, of Brown, 2008 ). In order not to overcomplicate my argument too much, in this paper I take Autonomy to be about the autonomy of science from political control.

The terms ‘autonomy’ and ‘freedom’ are often used as synonyms, although some philosophers disentangle their underlying concepts. Dworkin ( 1998 ) argues that the fact that some agents are autonomous does not imply their right to freedom. For example, criminal organizations make decisions autonomously, but that does not mean that they have the right to do so. In this article I will not discuss whether autonomy and freedom are the same concepts or, if different, how and up to which point they are linked. For the present purposes, I will use the expressions ‘Autonomy Thesis’ and ‘Autonomy’ (rather than ‘Freedom Thesis’) mainly to avoid confusion with value- freedom . Finally, it is also worth reminding that many discussions about the concepts of freedom and autonomy have been developed by moral and political philosophers with regard to individuals, and then later applied to discuss the autonomy of institutions. This last point leads us to wonder whether Autonomy is about the autonomy of science as an institution or of scientists as individuals. For the moment, I can only acknowledge this issue without delving into it any further.

Compare DS1-DS4 with the premises of the argument from underdetermination, or ‘gap argument’ (G1-G4), and the premises of the argument from inductive risk, or ‘error argument’ (E1-E4), as analyzed by ChoGlueck ( 2018 ).

Avin, S. (2018). Policy considerations for random allocations of research funds. Roar Transactions: A Journal on Research Policy & Evaluation , 1 . https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/roars/article/view/8626/9290 .

Aydinonat, N. E., Reijula, S., & Ylikoski, P. (2021). Argumentative landscapes: The functions of models in social epistemology. Synthese , 199 , 369–395.

Article   Google Scholar  

Berlin, I. (1969). Two concepts of liberty. In I. Berlin (2002) Four Essays on Liberty (118–72). Oxford University Press.

Betz, G. (2013). In defense of the value free ideal. European Journal for Philosophy of Science , 3 , 207–220.

Bright, L. (2018). DuBois’s democratic defense of the value free ideal. Synthese , 195 , 2227–2245.

Brown, J. (2008). The community of science. In M. Carrier, D. Howard, & J. Kourany (Eds.), The challenge of the Social and the pressure of practice: Science and values revisited (pp. 198–216). Pittsburgh University.

Brown, M. (2020). Science and Moral Imagination . Pittsburgh University.

Carrier, M. (2022). What does good science-based advice to politics look like? Journal for General Philosophy of Science , 53 , 5–21.

ChoGlueck, C. (2018). The error is in the gap: Synthesizing accounts for societal values in science. Philosophy of Science , 85 , 704–725.

Churchman, C. W. (1948). Statistics, pragmatics, induction. Philosophy of Science , 15 , 249–268.

Douglas, H. (2005). Inserting the public into science. In S. Maasen, & P. Wingart (Eds.), Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making (pp. 153–169). Springer.

Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal . Pittsburgh University.

Douglas, H. (2017). Science, values, and citizens. In A. Adams, Z. Biener, U. Feest, & J. Sullivan (Eds.), Eppur Si Muove: Doing history and philosophy of science with Peter Machamer (pp. 83–96). Springer.

Douglas, H. (2021). Scientific freedom and social responsibility. In P. Hartl, & T. Tuboly (Eds.), Science, Freedom, and democracy (pp. 68–87). Routledge.

Du Bois, W. E. B. (1898). The study of negro problems. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 11 , 1–23.

Dworkin, G. (1998). The theory and practice of autonomy . Cambridge University Press.

Elliott, K. (2017). A tapestry of values . Oxford University Press.

Elliott, K., & McKaughan, J. (2014). Non-epistemic values and the multiple goals of science. Philosophy of Science , 81 , 1–21.

Elliott, K., & Resnick, D. (2014). Science, policy and the transparency of values. Environmental Health Perspectives , 122 , 647–650.

Frey, D., & Šešelja, D. (2018). What is the epistemic function of highly idealized Agent-based models of scientific inquiry? Philosophy of the Social Sciences , 48 , 407–433.

Harding, S. (1995). Strong objectivity: A response to the new objectivity question. Synthese , 104 , 331–349.

Hartl, P. (2021). The ethos of science and central planning: Merton and Michael Polanyi on the autonomy of Science. In P. Hartl, & A. Tuboly (Eds.), Science, Freedom, Democracy (pp. 39–67). Routledge.

Havstad, J. (2022). Sensational science, archaic hominin genetics,and amplified inductive risk. Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 52 ,295–320. https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2021.15

Henschen, T. (2021). How strong is the argument from inductive risk? European Journal for Philosophy of Science , 11 , 92.

Hicks, D. (2011). On the ideal of autonomous science. Philosophy of Science , 78 , 1235–1248.

Hilligardt, H. (2023). Partisan science and the democratic legitimacy ideal. Synthese , 202 , 135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04370-5 .

Holman, B., & Wilholt, T. (2022). The new demarcation problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science , 91 , 211–220.

Intemann, K. (2015). Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate values in climate modeling. European Journal for Philosophy of Science , 5 , 217–232.

Intemann, K., & de Melo-Martín, I. (2010). Social values as evidentiary standards: The case of the HPV vaccine. Biology and Philosophy , 25 , 203–213.

Kitcher, P. (1990). The Division of Cognitive Labor. Journal of Philosophy , 87 , 5–22.

Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, Truth, and democracy . Oxford University Press.

Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a Democratic Society Prometheus.

Kourany, J. (2010). Philosophy of Science after Feminism . Oxford University Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , Chicago University Press, 1st edition; 1970: 2nd edition (with ‘Postscript’).

Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Objectivity, value judgment and theory choice. Reprinted. In T. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change (pp. 320–339). Chicago University Press.

Lacey, H. (1999). Is Science Value Free? Values and Scientific Understanding . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203983195

Laudan, L. (1984). Science and values . California University.

Levi, I. (1960). Must scientists make value judgments? Journal of Philosophy , 57 , 345–357.

Longino, H. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge . Princeton University Press.

Longino, H. (1996). Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy. In L. Nelson, & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminism, Science, and the philosophy of Science (pp. 39–58). Springer.

Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge . Princeton University Press.

Lusk, G. (2020). Political legitimacy in the democratic view: The case of climate services. Philosophy of Science , 87 , 991–1002.

Lusk, G. (2021). Does democracy require value-neutral science? Analyzing the legitimacy of scientific information in the political sphere. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science , 90 , 102–110.

Martini, C., & Fernández Pinto, M. (2017). Modeling the social organization of science: Chasing complexity through simulations. European Journal for Philosophy of Science , 7 , 221–238.

McMullin, E. (1983). Values in Science. In P. Asquith, & T. Nickles (Eds.), PSA 1982 (Vol. 2, pp. 3–28). Philosophy of Science Association.

Merton, R. K. (1938). Science and the social order. Philosophy of Science , 5 , 321–337.

Mullins, P. (2021). Michael Polanyi’s post-critical philosophical vision of science and society. In P. Hartl, & A. Tuboly (Eds.), Science, Freedom, Democracy (pp. 15–38). Routledge.

Peters, U. (2021). Illegitimate values, confirmation bias, and Mandevillian cognition in Science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 72 , 1061–1081.

Petrovich, E., & Viola, M. (2018). Social epistemology at work: from philosophical theory to policy advice. Roar Transactions: a journal on research policy & evaluation 1. https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/roars/article/view/9828 .

Polanyi, M. (1951). The logic of Liberty: Reflections and rejoinders . Routledge.

Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge . Chicago University Press.

Polanyi, M. (1962). The Republic of Science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva , 1 , 54–74.

Politi, V. (2021). Formal models of the scientific community and the value-ladenness of science. European Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 11 , 97.

Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of Justice . Harvard University Press.

Rolin, K. (2021). Objectivity, trust and social responsibility. Synthese , 199 , 513–533. (2021).

Rooney, P. (1992). On values in science: Is the epistemic/non-epistemic distinction useful? PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992 , 1 , 13–22.

Google Scholar  

Rudner, R. (1953). The scientist qua scientist makes value judgments. Philosophy of Science , 20 , 1–6.

Schroeder, A. (2017). Using democratic values in science: An objection and (partial) response. Philosophy of Science , 84 , 1044–1054.

Schroeder, A. (2022a). Thinking about values in science: Ethical versus political approaches. Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 52 , 246–255.

Schroeder, S. (2022b). Diversifying science: Comparing the benefits of citizen science with the benefits of bringing more women into science. Synthese , 200 , 306.

Šešelja, D. (2020). Exploring scientific inquiry via agent-based modeling. Perspectives on Science , 29 , 537–557.

Thicke, M. (2020). Evaluating formal models of science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science , 51 , 315–335.

Weisberg, M. (2010). New approaches to the division of cognitive labor. In P. D. Magnus, & J. Busch (Eds.), New waves in philosophy of Science (pp. 250–269). Palgrave Macmillan.

Weisberg, M., & Muldoon, R. (2009). Epistemic landscapes and the division of cognitive labor. Philosophy of Science , 76 , 225–252.

Zollman, K. (2007). The communication structure of epistemic communities. Philosophy of Science , 74 , 574–587.

Zollman, K. (2010). The epistemic benefit of transient diversity. Erkenntnis , 72 , 17–35.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank the anonymous reviewers of Synthese for their valuable comments on previous versions of the article. I am grateful to Philip Kitcher, who patiently discussed with me some of the issues I tackle in this article during his BIAP lectures in Barcelona. I hope that our ‘engaged conversation’ will continue. This work was funded by the Beatriu de Pinós/Marie Skłodowska–Curie Action Cofund Fellowship Scheme (Grant Number: 2020-BP-00196).

Open Access Funding provided by Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. Funding for this research has been provided by the Beatriu de Pinós Fellow/ Marie Skłodowska–Curie Action Cofund (grant number: 2020-BP-00196).

Open Access Funding provided by Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institut d’Història de La Ciència (iHC), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, 08193, Spain

Vincenzo Politi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincenzo Politi .

Ethics declarations

Research involving human participants and/or animals.

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Competing interests.

The author reports no potential conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Politi, V. “The value-free ideal, the autonomy thesis, and cognitive diversity”. Synthese 204 , 24 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-024-04673-1

Download citation

Received : 14 July 2023

Accepted : 11 June 2024

Published : 03 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-024-04673-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Value-free ideal
• Democratisation of science
• Cognitive labor
• Social epistemology
• Political philosophy of science

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research