in an argument a thesis statement is also known as

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Writing a Paper: Thesis Statements

Basics of thesis statements.

The thesis statement is the brief articulation of your paper's central argument and purpose. You might hear it referred to as simply a "thesis." Every scholarly paper should have a thesis statement, and strong thesis statements are concise, specific, and arguable. Concise means the thesis is short: perhaps one or two sentences for a shorter paper. Specific means the thesis deals with a narrow and focused topic, appropriate to the paper's length. Arguable means that a scholar in your field could disagree (or perhaps already has!).

Strong thesis statements address specific intellectual questions, have clear positions, and use a structure that reflects the overall structure of the paper. Read on to learn more about constructing a strong thesis statement.

Being Specific

This thesis statement has no specific argument:

Needs Improvement: In this essay, I will examine two scholarly articles to find similarities and differences.

This statement is concise, but it is neither specific nor arguable—a reader might wonder, "Which scholarly articles? What is the topic of this paper? What field is the author writing in?" Additionally, the purpose of the paper—to "examine…to find similarities and differences" is not of a scholarly level. Identifying similarities and differences is a good first step, but strong academic argument goes further, analyzing what those similarities and differences might mean or imply.

Better: In this essay, I will argue that Bowler's (2003) autocratic management style, when coupled with Smith's (2007) theory of social cognition, can reduce the expenses associated with employee turnover.

The new revision here is still concise, as well as specific and arguable.  We can see that it is specific because the writer is mentioning (a) concrete ideas and (b) exact authors.  We can also gather the field (business) and the topic (management and employee turnover). The statement is arguable because the student goes beyond merely comparing; he or she draws conclusions from that comparison ("can reduce the expenses associated with employee turnover").

Making a Unique Argument

This thesis draft repeats the language of the writing prompt without making a unique argument:

Needs Improvement: The purpose of this essay is to monitor, assess, and evaluate an educational program for its strengths and weaknesses. Then, I will provide suggestions for improvement.

You can see here that the student has simply stated the paper's assignment, without articulating specifically how he or she will address it. The student can correct this error simply by phrasing the thesis statement as a specific answer to the assignment prompt.

Better: Through a series of student interviews, I found that Kennedy High School's antibullying program was ineffective. In order to address issues of conflict between students, I argue that Kennedy High School should embrace policies outlined by the California Department of Education (2010).

Words like "ineffective" and "argue" show here that the student has clearly thought through the assignment and analyzed the material; he or she is putting forth a specific and debatable position. The concrete information ("student interviews," "antibullying") further prepares the reader for the body of the paper and demonstrates how the student has addressed the assignment prompt without just restating that language.

Creating a Debate

This thesis statement includes only obvious fact or plot summary instead of argument:

Needs Improvement: Leadership is an important quality in nurse educators.

A good strategy to determine if your thesis statement is too broad (and therefore, not arguable) is to ask yourself, "Would a scholar in my field disagree with this point?" Here, we can see easily that no scholar is likely to argue that leadership is an unimportant quality in nurse educators.  The student needs to come up with a more arguable claim, and probably a narrower one; remember that a short paper needs a more focused topic than a dissertation.

Better: Roderick's (2009) theory of participatory leadership  is particularly appropriate to nurse educators working within the emergency medicine field, where students benefit most from collegial and kinesthetic learning.

Here, the student has identified a particular type of leadership ("participatory leadership"), narrowing the topic, and has made an arguable claim (this type of leadership is "appropriate" to a specific type of nurse educator). Conceivably, a scholar in the nursing field might disagree with this approach. The student's paper can now proceed, providing specific pieces of evidence to support the arguable central claim.

Choosing the Right Words

This thesis statement uses large or scholarly-sounding words that have no real substance:

Needs Improvement: Scholars should work to seize metacognitive outcomes by harnessing discipline-based networks to empower collaborative infrastructures.

There are many words in this sentence that may be buzzwords in the student's field or key terms taken from other texts, but together they do not communicate a clear, specific meaning. Sometimes students think scholarly writing means constructing complex sentences using special language, but actually it's usually a stronger choice to write clear, simple sentences. When in doubt, remember that your ideas should be complex, not your sentence structure.

Better: Ecologists should work to educate the U.S. public on conservation methods by making use of local and national green organizations to create a widespread communication plan.

Notice in the revision that the field is now clear (ecology), and the language has been made much more field-specific ("conservation methods," "green organizations"), so the reader is able to see concretely the ideas the student is communicating.

Leaving Room for Discussion

This thesis statement is not capable of development or advancement in the paper:

Needs Improvement: There are always alternatives to illegal drug use.

This sample thesis statement makes a claim, but it is not a claim that will sustain extended discussion. This claim is the type of claim that might be appropriate for the conclusion of a paper, but in the beginning of the paper, the student is left with nowhere to go. What further points can be made? If there are "always alternatives" to the problem the student is identifying, then why bother developing a paper around that claim? Ideally, a thesis statement should be complex enough to explore over the length of the entire paper.

Better: The most effective treatment plan for methamphetamine addiction may be a combination of pharmacological and cognitive therapy, as argued by Baker (2008), Smith (2009), and Xavier (2011).

In the revised thesis, you can see the student make a specific, debatable claim that has the potential to generate several pages' worth of discussion. When drafting a thesis statement, think about the questions your thesis statement will generate: What follow-up inquiries might a reader have? In the first example, there are almost no additional questions implied, but the revised example allows for a good deal more exploration.

Thesis Mad Libs

If you are having trouble getting started, try using the models below to generate a rough model of a thesis statement! These models are intended for drafting purposes only and should not appear in your final work.

• In this essay, I argue ____, using ______ to assert _____.
• While scholars have often argued ______, I argue______, because_______.
• Through an analysis of ______, I argue ______, which is important because_______.

Words to Avoid and to Embrace

When drafting your thesis statement, avoid words like explore, investigate, learn, compile, summarize , and explain to describe the main purpose of your paper. These words imply a paper that summarizes or "reports," rather than synthesizing and analyzing.

Instead of the terms above, try words like argue, critique, question , and interrogate . These more analytical words may help you begin strongly, by articulating a specific, critical, scholarly position.

Read Kayla's blog post for tips on taking a stand in a well-crafted thesis statement.

Related Resources

Didn't find what you need? Email us at [email protected] .

• Previous Page: Introductions
• Next Page: Conclusions
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

Developing a Thesis Statement

Many papers you write require developing a thesis statement. In this section you’ll learn what a thesis statement is and how to write one.

Keep in mind that not all papers require thesis statements . If in doubt, please consult your instructor for assistance.

What is a thesis statement?

A thesis statement . . .

• Makes an argumentative assertion about a topic; it states the conclusions that you have reached about your topic.
• Makes a promise to the reader about the scope, purpose, and direction of your paper.
• Is focused and specific enough to be “proven” within the boundaries of your paper.
• Is generally located near the end of the introduction ; sometimes, in a long paper, the thesis will be expressed in several sentences or in an entire paragraph.
• Identifies the relationships between the pieces of evidence that you are using to support your argument.

Not all papers require thesis statements! Ask your instructor if you’re in doubt whether you need one.

Identify a topic

Your topic is the subject about which you will write. Your assignment may suggest several ways of looking at a topic; or it may name a fairly general concept that you will explore or analyze in your paper.

Consider what your assignment asks you to do

Inform yourself about your topic, focus on one aspect of your topic, ask yourself whether your topic is worthy of your efforts, generate a topic from an assignment.

Below are some possible topics based on sample assignments.

Sample assignment 1

Analyze Spain’s neutrality in World War II.

Identified topic

Franco’s role in the diplomatic relationships between the Allies and the Axis

This topic avoids generalities such as “Spain” and “World War II,” addressing instead on Franco’s role (a specific aspect of “Spain”) and the diplomatic relations between the Allies and Axis (a specific aspect of World War II).

Sample assignment 2

Analyze one of Homer’s epic similes in the Iliad.

The relationship between the portrayal of warfare and the epic simile about Simoisius at 4.547-64.

This topic focuses on a single simile and relates it to a single aspect of the Iliad ( warfare being a major theme in that work).

Developing a Thesis Statement–Additional information

Your assignment may suggest several ways of looking at a topic, or it may name a fairly general concept that you will explore or analyze in your paper. You’ll want to read your assignment carefully, looking for key terms that you can use to focus your topic.

Sample assignment: Analyze Spain’s neutrality in World War II Key terms: analyze, Spain’s neutrality, World War II

After you’ve identified the key words in your topic, the next step is to read about them in several sources, or generate as much information as possible through an analysis of your topic. Obviously, the more material or knowledge you have, the more possibilities will be available for a strong argument. For the sample assignment above, you’ll want to look at books and articles on World War II in general, and Spain’s neutrality in particular.

As you consider your options, you must decide to focus on one aspect of your topic. This means that you cannot include everything you’ve learned about your topic, nor should you go off in several directions. If you end up covering too many different aspects of a topic, your paper will sprawl and be unconvincing in its argument, and it most likely will not fulfull the assignment requirements.

For the sample assignment above, both Spain’s neutrality and World War II are topics far too broad to explore in a paper. You may instead decide to focus on Franco’s role in the diplomatic relationships between the Allies and the Axis , which narrows down what aspects of Spain’s neutrality and World War II you want to discuss, as well as establishes a specific link between those two aspects.

Before you go too far, however, ask yourself whether your topic is worthy of your efforts. Try to avoid topics that already have too much written about them (i.e., “eating disorders and body image among adolescent women”) or that simply are not important (i.e. “why I like ice cream”). These topics may lead to a thesis that is either dry fact or a weird claim that cannot be supported. A good thesis falls somewhere between the two extremes. To arrive at this point, ask yourself what is new, interesting, contestable, or controversial about your topic.

As you work on your thesis, remember to keep the rest of your paper in mind at all times . Sometimes your thesis needs to evolve as you develop new insights, find new evidence, or take a different approach to your topic.

Derive a main point from topic

Once you have a topic, you will have to decide what the main point of your paper will be. This point, the “controlling idea,” becomes the core of your argument (thesis statement) and it is the unifying idea to which you will relate all your sub-theses. You can then turn this “controlling idea” into a purpose statement about what you intend to do in your paper.

Look for patterns in your evidence

Compose a purpose statement.

Consult the examples below for suggestions on how to look for patterns in your evidence and construct a purpose statement.

• Franco first tried to negotiate with the Axis
• Franco turned to the Allies when he couldn’t get some concessions that he wanted from the Axis

Possible conclusion:

Spain’s neutrality in WWII occurred for an entirely personal reason: Franco’s desire to preserve his own (and Spain’s) power.

Purpose statement

This paper will analyze Franco’s diplomacy during World War II to see how it contributed to Spain’s neutrality.

• The simile compares Simoisius to a tree, which is a peaceful, natural image.
• The tree in the simile is chopped down to make wheels for a chariot, which is an object used in warfare.

At first, the simile seems to take the reader away from the world of warfare, but we end up back in that world by the end.

This paper will analyze the way the simile about Simoisius at 4.547-64 moves in and out of the world of warfare.

Derive purpose statement from topic

To find out what your “controlling idea” is, you have to examine and evaluate your evidence . As you consider your evidence, you may notice patterns emerging, data repeated in more than one source, or facts that favor one view more than another. These patterns or data may then lead you to some conclusions about your topic and suggest that you can successfully argue for one idea better than another.

For instance, you might find out that Franco first tried to negotiate with the Axis, but when he couldn’t get some concessions that he wanted from them, he turned to the Allies. As you read more about Franco’s decisions, you may conclude that Spain’s neutrality in WWII occurred for an entirely personal reason: his desire to preserve his own (and Spain’s) power. Based on this conclusion, you can then write a trial thesis statement to help you decide what material belongs in your paper.

Sometimes you won’t be able to find a focus or identify your “spin” or specific argument immediately. Like some writers, you might begin with a purpose statement just to get yourself going. A purpose statement is one or more sentences that announce your topic and indicate the structure of the paper but do not state the conclusions you have drawn . Thus, you might begin with something like this:

• This paper will look at modern language to see if it reflects male dominance or female oppression.
• I plan to analyze anger and derision in offensive language to see if they represent a challenge of society’s authority.

At some point, you can turn a purpose statement into a thesis statement. As you think and write about your topic, you can restrict, clarify, and refine your argument, crafting your thesis statement to reflect your thinking.

As you work on your thesis, remember to keep the rest of your paper in mind at all times. Sometimes your thesis needs to evolve as you develop new insights, find new evidence, or take a different approach to your topic.

Compose a draft thesis statement

If you are writing a paper that will have an argumentative thesis and are having trouble getting started, the techniques in the table below may help you develop a temporary or “working” thesis statement.

Begin with a purpose statement that you will later turn into a thesis statement.

Assignment: Discuss the history of the Reform Party and explain its influence on the 1990 presidential and Congressional election.

Purpose Statement: This paper briefly sketches the history of the grassroots, conservative, Perot-led Reform Party and analyzes how it influenced the economic and social ideologies of the two mainstream parties.

Question-to-Assertion

If your assignment asks a specific question(s), turn the question(s) into an assertion and give reasons why it is true or reasons for your opinion.

Assignment : What do Aylmer and Rappaccini have to be proud of? Why aren’t they satisfied with these things? How does pride, as demonstrated in “The Birthmark” and “Rappaccini’s Daughter,” lead to unexpected problems?

Beginning thesis statement: Alymer and Rappaccinni are proud of their great knowledge; however, they are also very greedy and are driven to use their knowledge to alter some aspect of nature as a test of their ability. Evil results when they try to “play God.”

Write a sentence that summarizes the main idea of the essay you plan to write.

Main idea: The reason some toys succeed in the market is that they appeal to the consumers’ sense of the ridiculous and their basic desire to laugh at themselves.

Make a list of the ideas that you want to include; consider the ideas and try to group them.

• nature = peaceful
• war matériel = violent (competes with 1?)
• need for time and space to mourn the dead
• war is inescapable (competes with 3?)

Use a formula to arrive at a working thesis statement (you will revise this later).

• although most readers of _______ have argued that _______, closer examination shows that _______.
• _______ uses _______ and _____ to prove that ________.
• phenomenon x is a result of the combination of __________, __________, and _________.

What to keep in mind as you draft an initial thesis statement

Beginning statements obtained through the methods illustrated above can serve as a framework for planning or drafting your paper, but remember they’re not yet the specific, argumentative thesis you want for the final version of your paper. In fact, in its first stages, a thesis statement usually is ill-formed or rough and serves only as a planning tool.

As you write, you may discover evidence that does not fit your temporary or “working” thesis. Or you may reach deeper insights about your topic as you do more research, and you will find that your thesis statement has to be more complicated to match the evidence that you want to use.

You must be willing to reject or omit some evidence in order to keep your paper cohesive and your reader focused. Or you may have to revise your thesis to match the evidence and insights that you want to discuss. Read your draft carefully, noting the conclusions you have drawn and the major ideas which support or prove those conclusions. These will be the elements of your final thesis statement.

Sometimes you will not be able to identify these elements in your early drafts, but as you consider how your argument is developing and how your evidence supports your main idea, ask yourself, “ What is the main point that I want to prove/discuss? ” and “ How will I convince the reader that this is true? ” When you can answer these questions, then you can begin to refine the thesis statement.

Refine and polish the thesis statement

To get to your final thesis, you’ll need to refine your draft thesis so that it’s specific and arguable.

• Ask if your draft thesis addresses the assignment
• Question each part of your draft thesis
• Clarify vague phrases and assertions
• Investigate alternatives to your draft thesis

Consult the example below for suggestions on how to refine your draft thesis statement.

Sample Assignment

Choose an activity and define it as a symbol of American culture. Your essay should cause the reader to think critically about the society which produces and enjoys that activity.

• Ask The phenomenon of drive-in facilities is an interesting symbol of american culture, and these facilities demonstrate significant characteristics of our society.This statement does not fulfill the assignment because it does not require the reader to think critically about society.

Drive-ins are an interesting symbol of American culture because they represent Americans’ significant creativity and business ingenuity.

Among the types of drive-in facilities familiar during the twentieth century, drive-in movie theaters best represent American creativity, not merely because they were the forerunner of later drive-ins and drive-throughs, but because of their impact on our culture: they changed our relationship to the automobile, changed the way people experienced movies, and changed movie-going into a family activity.

While drive-in facilities such as those at fast-food establishments, banks, pharmacies, and dry cleaners symbolize America’s economic ingenuity, they also have affected our personal standards.

While drive-in facilities such as those at fast- food restaurants, banks, pharmacies, and dry cleaners symbolize (1) Americans’ business ingenuity, they also have contributed (2) to an increasing homogenization of our culture, (3) a willingness to depersonalize relationships with others, and (4) a tendency to sacrifice quality for convenience.

This statement is now specific and fulfills all parts of the assignment. This version, like any good thesis, is not self-evident; its points, 1-4, will have to be proven with evidence in the body of the paper. The numbers in this statement indicate the order in which the points will be presented. Depending on the length of the paper, there could be one paragraph for each numbered item or there could be blocks of paragraph for even pages for each one.

Complete the final thesis statement

The bottom line.

As you move through the process of crafting a thesis, you’ll need to remember four things:

• Context matters! Think about your course materials and lectures. Try to relate your thesis to the ideas your instructor is discussing.
• As you go through the process described in this section, always keep your assignment in mind . You will be more successful when your thesis (and paper) responds to the assignment than if it argues a semi-related idea.
• Your thesis statement should be precise, focused, and contestable ; it should predict the sub-theses or blocks of information that you will use to prove your argument.
• Make sure that you keep the rest of your paper in mind at all times. Change your thesis as your paper evolves, because you do not want your thesis to promise more than your paper actually delivers.

In the beginning, the thesis statement was a tool to help you sharpen your focus, limit material and establish the paper’s purpose. When your paper is finished, however, the thesis statement becomes a tool for your reader. It tells the reader what you have learned about your topic and what evidence led you to your conclusion. It keeps the reader on track–well able to understand and appreciate your argument.

Writing Process and Structure

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Getting Started with Your Paper

Interpreting Writing Assignments from Your Courses

Generating Ideas for

Creating an Argument

Thesis vs. Purpose Statements

Architecture of Arguments

Working with Sources

Quoting and Paraphrasing Sources

Using Literary Quotations

Citing Sources in Your Paper

Drafting Your Paper

Generating Ideas for Your Paper

Introductions

Paragraphing

Developing Strategic Transitions

Conclusions

Revising Your Paper

Peer Reviews

Reverse Outlines

Revising an Argumentative Paper

Revision Strategies for Longer Projects

Finishing Your Paper

Twelve Common Errors: An Editing Checklist

How to Proofread your Paper

Writing Collaboratively

Collaborative and Group Writing

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Developing Strong Thesis Statements

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The thesis statement or main claim must be debatable

An argumentative or persuasive piece of writing must begin with a debatable thesis or claim. In other words, the thesis must be something that people could reasonably have differing opinions on. If your thesis is something that is generally agreed upon or accepted as fact then there is no reason to try to persuade people.

Example of a non-debatable thesis statement:

This thesis statement is not debatable. First, the word pollution implies that something is bad or negative in some way. Furthermore, all studies agree that pollution is a problem; they simply disagree on the impact it will have or the scope of the problem. No one could reasonably argue that pollution is unambiguously good.

Example of a debatable thesis statement:

This is an example of a debatable thesis because reasonable people could disagree with it. Some people might think that this is how we should spend the nation's money. Others might feel that we should be spending more money on education. Still others could argue that corporations, not the government, should be paying to limit pollution.

Another example of a debatable thesis statement:

In this example there is also room for disagreement between rational individuals. Some citizens might think focusing on recycling programs rather than private automobiles is the most effective strategy.

The thesis needs to be narrow

Although the scope of your paper might seem overwhelming at the start, generally the narrower the thesis the more effective your argument will be. Your thesis or claim must be supported by evidence. The broader your claim is, the more evidence you will need to convince readers that your position is right.

Example of a thesis that is too broad:

There are several reasons this statement is too broad to argue. First, what is included in the category "drugs"? Is the author talking about illegal drug use, recreational drug use (which might include alcohol and cigarettes), or all uses of medication in general? Second, in what ways are drugs detrimental? Is drug use causing deaths (and is the author equating deaths from overdoses and deaths from drug related violence)? Is drug use changing the moral climate or causing the economy to decline? Finally, what does the author mean by "society"? Is the author referring only to America or to the global population? Does the author make any distinction between the effects on children and adults? There are just too many questions that the claim leaves open. The author could not cover all of the topics listed above, yet the generality of the claim leaves all of these possibilities open to debate.

Example of a narrow or focused thesis:

In this example the topic of drugs has been narrowed down to illegal drugs and the detriment has been narrowed down to gang violence. This is a much more manageable topic.

We could narrow each debatable thesis from the previous examples in the following way:

Narrowed debatable thesis 1:

This thesis narrows the scope of the argument by specifying not just the amount of money used but also how the money could actually help to control pollution.

Narrowed debatable thesis 2:

This thesis narrows the scope of the argument by specifying not just what the focus of a national anti-pollution campaign should be but also why this is the appropriate focus.

Qualifiers such as " typically ," " generally ," " usually ," or " on average " also help to limit the scope of your claim by allowing for the almost inevitable exception to the rule.

Types of claims

Claims typically fall into one of four categories. Thinking about how you want to approach your topic, or, in other words, what type of claim you want to make, is one way to focus your thesis on one particular aspect of your broader topic.

Claims of fact or definition: These claims argue about what the definition of something is or whether something is a settled fact. Example:

Claims of cause and effect: These claims argue that one person, thing, or event caused another thing or event to occur. Example:

Claims about value: These are claims made of what something is worth, whether we value it or not, how we would rate or categorize something. Example:

Claims about solutions or policies: These are claims that argue for or against a certain solution or policy approach to a problem. Example:

Which type of claim is right for your argument? Which type of thesis or claim you use for your argument will depend on your position and knowledge of the topic, your audience, and the context of your paper. You might want to think about where you imagine your audience to be on this topic and pinpoint where you think the biggest difference in viewpoints might be. Even if you start with one type of claim you probably will be using several within the paper. Regardless of the type of claim you choose to utilize it is key to identify the controversy or debate you are addressing and to define your position early on in the paper.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

II. Getting Started

2.5 Writing Thesis Statements

Kathryn Crowther; Lauren Curtright; Nancy Gilbert; Barbara Hall; Tracienne Ravita; and Kirk Swenson

To be effective, all support in an essay must work together to convey a central point; otherwise, an essay can fall into the trap of being out of order and confusing. Just as a topic sentence focuses and unifies a single paragraph, the thesis statement focuses and unifies an entire essay. This statement is like a signpost that signals the essay’s destination; it tells the reader the point you want to make in your essay, while the essay itself supports that point.

Because writing is not a linear process, you may find that the best thesis statement develops near the end of your first draft. However, creating a draft or working thesis early in the writing project helps give the drafting process clear direction. You should form your thesis before you begin to organize an essay, but you may find that it needs revision as the essay develops.

A thesis is not just a topic, but rather the writer’s comment or interpretation of the question or subject. For whatever topic you select (for example, school uniforms, social networking), you must ask yourself, “What do I want to say about it?” Asking and then answering this question is vital to forming a thesis that is precise, forceful, and confident.

In the majority of essays, a thesis is one sentence long and appears toward the end of the introductory paragraph. It is specific and focuses on one to three points of a single idea—points that are able to be demonstrated in the body paragraphs. It forecasts the content of the essay and suggests how you will organize your information. Remember that a thesis statement does not summarize an issue but rather dissects it.

Working Thesis Statements

A strong thesis statement must have the following qualities:

• It must be arguable.  A thesis statement must state a point of view or judgment about a topic. An established fact is not considered arguable.
• It must be supportable.  The thesis statement must contain a point of view that can be supported with evidence (reasons, facts, examples).
• It must be specific. A thesis statement must be precise enough to allow for a coherent argument and remain focused on the topic.

Examples of Appropriate Thesis Statements

• Closing all American borders for a period of five years is one solution that will tackle illegal immigration.
• Compared to an absolute divorce, no-fault divorce is less expensive, promotes fairer settlements, and reflects a more realistic view of the causes for marital breakdown.
• Exposing children from an early age to the dangers of drug abuse is a sure method of preventing future drug addicts.
• In today’s crumbling job market, a high school diploma is not significant enough education to land a stable, lucrative job.
• The societal and personal struggles of Troy Maxson in the play Fences symbolize the challenges of black males who lived through segregation and integration in the United States.

Pitfalls to Avoid

A thesis is weak when it is simply a declaration of your subject or a description of what you will discuss in your essay.

Weak Thesis Statement Example

My paper will explain why imagination is more important than knowledge.

A thesis is weak when it makes an unreasonable or outrageous claim or insults the opposing side.

Religious radicals across America are trying to legislate their Puritanical beliefs by banning required high school books.

A thesis is weak when it contains an obvious fact or something that no one can disagree with or provides a dead end.

Advertising companies use sex to sell their products.

A thesis is weak when the statement is too broad.

The life of Abraham Lincoln was long and challenging.

Ways to Revise Your Thesis

Your thesis statement begins as a working thesis statement, an indefinite statement that you make about your topic early in the writing process for the purpose of planning and guiding your writing. Working thesis statements often become stronger as you gather information and develop new ideas and reasons for those ideas. Revision helps you strengthen your thesis so that it matches what you have expressed in the body of the paper.

You can cut down on irrelevant aspects and revise your thesis by taking the following steps:

• Pinpoint and replace all non specific words, such as people, everything, society, or life, with more precise words in order to reduce any vagueness.

Pinpoint and Replace Example

Working thesis:  Young people have to work hard to succeed in life.

Revised thesis:  Recent college graduates must have discipline and persistence in order to find and maintain a stable job in which they can use, and be appreciated for, their talents.

Explanation:  The original includes too broad a range of people and does not define exactly what success entails. By replacing those general words like people and work hard , the writer can better focus their research and gain more direction in their writing. The revised thesis makes a more specific statement about success and what it means to work hard.

• Clarify ideas that need explanation by asking yourself questions that narrow your thesis.

Clarify Example

Working thesis:  The welfare system is a joke.

Revised thesis:  The welfare system keeps a socioeconomic class from gaining employment by alluring members of that class with unearned income, instead of programs to improve their education and skill sets.

Explanation:  A joke means many things to many people. Readers bring all sorts of backgrounds and perspectives to the reading process and would need clarification for a word so vague. This expression may also be too informal for the selected audience. By asking questions, the writer can devise a more precise and appropriate explanation for joke and more accurately defines their stance, which will better guide the writing of the essay.

• Replace any linking verbs with action verbs. Linking verbs are forms of the verb to be , a verb that simply states that a situation exists.

Replace with Action Verbs Example

Working thesis:  Kansas City school teachers are not paid enough.

Revised thesis:  The Kansas City legislature cannot afford to pay its educators, resulting in job cuts and resignations in a district that sorely needs highly qualified and dedicated teachers.

Explanation:  The linking verb in this working thesis statement is the word are . Linking verbs often make thesis statements weak because they do not express action. Rather, they connect words and phrases to the second half of the sentence. Readers might wonder, “Why are they not paid enough?” But this statement does not compel them to ask many more questions.

• Who is not paying the teachers enough?
• How much is considered “enough”?
• What is the problem?
• What are the results?
• Omit any general claims that are hard to support.

Omit General Claims Example

Working thesis:  Today’s teenage girls are too sexualized.

Revised thesis: Teenage girls who are captivated by the sexual images on the internet and social media are conditioned to believe that a woman’s worth depends on her sensuality, a feeling that harms their self-esteem and behavior.

Explanation:  It is true that some young women in today’s society are more sexualized than in the past, but that is not true for all girls. Many girls have strict parents, dress appropriately, and do not engage in sexual activity while in middle school and high school. The writer of this thesis should ask the following questions:

• Which teenage girls?
• What constitutes “too” sexualized?
• Why are they behaving that way?
• Where does this behavior show up?
• What are the repercussions?

This section contains material from:

Crowther, Kathryn, Lauren Curtright, Nancy Gilbert, Barbara Hall, Tracienne Ravita, and Kirk Swenson. Successful College Composition . 2nd ed. Book 8. Georgia: English Open Textbooks, 2016. http://oer.galileo.usg.edu/english-textbooks/8 . Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License .

Relating to lines; a way of explaining information logically and/or sequentially; can refer to the chronological relaying of information.

A brief and concise statement or series of statements that outlines the main point(s) of a longer work. To summarize is to create a brief and concise statement or series of statements that outlines the main point(s) of a longer work.

To analyze closely or minutely; to scrutinize every aspect. Unlike the fields of biology, anatomy, or medicine, in rhetoric and writing, dissect does not refer to the cutting apart of a physical body but to the taking apart the body of an argument or idea piece by piece to understand it better.

A logical, rational, lucid, or understandable expression of an idea, concept, or notion; consistent and harmonious explanation.

Assertion or announcement of belief, understanding, or knowledge; a formal statement or proclamation.

Without a defined number or limit; unlimited, infinite, or undetermined.

An altered version of  a written work. Revising means to rewrite in order to improve and make corrections. Unlike editing, which involves minor changes, revisions include major and noticeable changes to a written work.

Not relevant; unimportant; beside the point; not relating to the matter at hand.

Attractive, tempting, or seductive; to have an appealing and charismatic quality.

To influence or convince; to produce a certain or specific result through the use of force.

2.5 Writing Thesis Statements Copyright © 2022 by Kathryn Crowther; Lauren Curtright; Nancy Gilbert; Barbara Hall; Tracienne Ravita; and Kirk Swenson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• Literary Terms
• Definition & Examples
• When & How to Write a Thesis

I. What is a Thesis?

The thesis (pronounced thee -seez), also known as a thesis statement, is the sentence that introduces the main argument or point of view of a composition (formal essay, nonfiction piece, or narrative). It is the main claim that the author is making about that topic and serves to summarize and introduce that writing that will be discussed throughout the entire piece. For this reason, the thesis is typically found within the first introduction paragraph.

II. Examples of Theses

Here are a few examples of theses which may be found in the introductions of a variety of essays :

In “The Mending Wall,” Robert Frost uses imagery, metaphor, and dialogue to argue against the use of fences between neighbors.

In this example, the thesis introduces the main subject (Frost’s poem “The Mending Wall”), aspects of the subject which will be examined (imagery, metaphor, and dialogue) and the writer’s argument (fences should not be used).

While Facebook connects some, overall, the social networking site is negative in that it isolates users, causes jealousy, and becomes an addiction.

This thesis introduces an argumentative essay which argues against the use of Facebook due to three of its negative effects.

During the college application process, I discovered my willingness to work hard to achieve my dreams and just what those dreams were.

In this more personal example, the thesis statement introduces a narrative essay which will focus on personal development in realizing one’s goals and how to achieve them.

III. The Importance of Using a Thesis

Theses are absolutely necessary components in essays because they introduce what an essay will be about. Without a thesis, the essay lacks clear organization and direction. Theses allow writers to organize their ideas by clearly stating them, and they allow readers to be aware from the beginning of a composition’s subject, argument, and course. Thesis statements must precisely express an argument within the introductory paragraph of the piece in order to guide the reader from the very beginning.

IV. Examples of Theses in Literature

For examples of theses in literature, consider these thesis statements from essays about topics in literature:

In William Shakespeare’s “ Sonnet 46,” both physicality and emotion together form powerful romantic love.

This thesis statement clearly states the work and its author as well as the main argument: physicality and emotion create romantic love.

In The Scarlet Letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne symbolically shows Hester Prynne’s developing identity through the use of the letter A: she moves from adulteress to able community member to angel.

In this example, the work and author are introduced as well as the main argument and supporting points: Prynne’s identity is shown through the letter A in three ways: adulteress, able community member, and angel.

John Keats’ poem “To Autumn” utilizes rhythm, rhyme, and imagery to examine autumn’s simultaneous birth and decay.

This thesis statement introduces the poem and its author along with an argument about the nature of autumn. This argument will be supported by an examination of rhythm, rhyme, and imagery.

V. Examples of Theses in Pop Culture

Sometimes, pop culture attempts to make arguments similar to those of research papers and essays. Here are a few examples of theses in pop culture:

America’s food industry is making a killing and it’s making us sick, but you have the power to turn the tables.

The documentary Food Inc. examines this thesis with evidence throughout the film including video evidence, interviews with experts, and scientific research.

Orca whales should not be kept in captivity, as it is psychologically traumatizing and has caused them to kill their own trainers.

Blackfish uses footage, interviews, and history to argue for the thesis that orca whales should not be held in captivity.

VI. Related Terms

Just as a thesis is introduced in the beginning of a composition, the hypothesis is considered a starting point as well. Whereas a thesis introduces the main point of an essay, the hypothesis introduces a proposed explanation which is being investigated through scientific or mathematical research. Thesis statements present arguments based on evidence which is presented throughout the paper, whereas hypotheses are being tested by scientists and mathematicians who may disprove or prove them through experimentation. Here is an example of a hypothesis versus a thesis:

Hypothesis:

Students skip school more often as summer vacation approaches.

This hypothesis could be tested by examining attendance records and interviewing students. It may or may not be true.

Students skip school due to sickness, boredom with classes, and the urge to rebel.

This thesis presents an argument which will be examined and supported in the paper with detailed evidence and research.

Introduction

A paper’s introduction is its first paragraph which is used to introduce the paper’s main aim and points used to support that aim throughout the paper. The thesis statement is the most important part of the introduction which states all of this information in one concise statement. Typically, introduction paragraphs require a thesis statement which ties together the entire introduction and introduces the rest of the paper.

VII. Conclusion

Theses are necessary components of well-organized and convincing essays, nonfiction pieces, narratives , and documentaries. They allow writers to organize and support arguments to be developed throughout a composition, and they allow readers to understand from the beginning what the aim of the composition is.

List of Terms

• Alliteration
• Amplification
• Anachronism
• Anthropomorphism
• Antonomasia
• APA Citation
• Aposiopesis
• Autobiography
• Bildungsroman
• Characterization
• Circumlocution
• Cliffhanger
• Comic Relief
• Connotation
• Deus ex machina
• Deuteragonist
• Doppelganger
• Double Entendre
• Dramatic irony
• Equivocation
• Extended Metaphor
• Figures of Speech
• Flash-forward
• Foreshadowing
• Intertextuality
• Juxtaposition
• Literary Device
• Malapropism
• Onomatopoeia
• Parallelism
• Pathetic Fallacy
• Personification
• Point of View
• Polysyndeton
• Protagonist
• Red Herring
• Rhetorical Device
• Rhetorical Question
• Science Fiction
• Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
• Synesthesia
• Turning Point
• Understatement
• Urban Legend
• Verisimilitude
• Essay Guide
• Cite This Website

• U.S. Locations
• UMGC Europe
• Learn Online
• Find Answers
• 855-655-8682
• Current Students

Online Guide to Writing and Research

Other frequently assigned papers, explore more of umgc.

• Online Guide to Writing

Writing Arguments

Steps to Writing an Argument

State your thesis or proposition.

In argument, the  thesis  is also called a proposition. Your proposition should do the following:

define your argument’s scope by stating its situation or context; and

make clear what assertion you are going to debate. 

You may “hook” your readers by stating your argument as a question. Because many questions lack a point of view, however, be sure a question leads to a proposition, and that your proposition makes a claim that is open to debate. Your proposition should state something that your readers feel uncertain about and about which you find arguments for both sides of the issue.

Sometimes students have an opinion they intend to address and support. Then, after reviewing information on the topic, they decide that they have to modify or change their opinion. This is all part of the writing process. When you do research, you may find new information or evidence that changes your argument. Your proposition can be modified during the draft stage.

To help you get started at this stage,  brainstorm  and  freewrite  about what you already know about the topic. Asking—and answering—the following questions can get you started on your assignment.

Why is this issue important to me? Why do I want to write about it?

What do I already know about this topic? What do I need to learn about this topic?

Where can I find more information on this subject?

Am I concerned more with the causes of this issue, the effects of this issue, or both?

What other related issues should I examine so that I can address the topic thoroughly?

Mailing Address: 3501 University Blvd. East, Adelphi, MD 20783 This work is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License . © 2022 UMGC. All links to external sites were verified at the time of publication. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity of information located at external sites.

Table of Contents: Online Guide to Writing

Chapter 1: College Writing

How Does College Writing Differ from Workplace Writing?

What Is College Writing?

Why So Much Emphasis on Writing?

Chapter 2: The Writing Process

Doing Exploratory Research

Getting from Notes to Your Draft

Introduction

Prewriting - Techniques to Get Started - Mining Your Intuition

Prewriting: Targeting Your Audience

Prewriting: Techniques to Get Started

Prewriting: Understanding Your Assignment

Rewriting: Being Your Own Critic

Rewriting: Creating a Revision Strategy

Rewriting: Getting Feedback

Rewriting: The Final Draft

Techniques to Get Started - Outlining

Techniques to Get Started - Using Systematic Techniques

Thesis Statement and Controlling Idea

Writing: Getting from Notes to Your Draft - Freewriting

Writing: Getting from Notes to Your Draft - Summarizing Your Ideas

Writing: Outlining What You Will Write

Chapter 3: Thinking Strategies

A Word About Style, Voice, and Tone

A Word About Style, Voice, and Tone: Style Through Vocabulary and Diction

Critical Strategies and Writing

Critical Strategies and Writing: Analysis

Critical Strategies and Writing: Evaluation

Critical Strategies and Writing: Persuasion

Critical Strategies and Writing: Synthesis

Developing a Paper Using Strategies

Kinds of Assignments You Will Write

Patterns for Presenting Information

Patterns for Presenting Information: Critiques

Patterns for Presenting Information: Discussing Raw Data

Patterns for Presenting Information: General-to-Specific Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Problem-Cause-Solution Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Specific-to-General Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Summaries and Abstracts

Supporting with Research and Examples

Writing Essay Examinations

Writing Essay Examinations: Make Your Answer Relevant and Complete

Writing Essay Examinations: Organize Thinking Before Writing

Writing Essay Examinations: Read and Understand the Question

Chapter 4: The Research Process

Planning and Writing a Research Paper

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Ask a Research Question

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Cite Sources

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Collect Evidence

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Decide Your Point of View, or Role, for Your Research

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Draw Conclusions

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Find a Topic and Get an Overview

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Manage Your Resources

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Outline

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Survey the Literature

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Work Your Sources into Your Research Writing

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Human Resources

Research Resources: What Are Research Resources?

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found?

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Electronic Resources

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Print Resources

Structuring the Research Paper: Formal Research Structure

Structuring the Research Paper: Informal Research Structure

The Nature of Research

The Research Assignment: How Should Research Sources Be Evaluated?

The Research Assignment: When Is Research Needed?

The Research Assignment: Why Perform Research?

Chapter 5: Academic Integrity

Academic Integrity

Giving Credit to Sources

Giving Credit to Sources: Copyright Laws

Giving Credit to Sources: Documentation

Giving Credit to Sources: Style Guides

Integrating Sources

Practicing Academic Integrity

Practicing Academic Integrity: Keeping Accurate Records

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Paraphrasing Your Source

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Quoting Your Source

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Summarizing Your Sources

Types of Documentation

Types of Documentation: Bibliographies and Source Lists

Types of Documentation: Citing World Wide Web Sources

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - APA Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - CSE/CBE Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - Chicago Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - MLA Style

Types of Documentation: Note Citations

Chapter 6: Using Library Resources

Finding Library Resources

Chapter 7: Assessing Your Writing

How Is Writing Graded?

How Is Writing Graded?: A General Assessment Tool

The Draft Stage

The Draft Stage: The First Draft

The Draft Stage: The Revision Process and the Final Draft

The Draft Stage: Using Feedback

The Research Stage

Using Assessment to Improve Your Writing

Chapter 8: Other Frequently Assigned Papers

Reviews and Reaction Papers: Article and Book Reviews

Reviews and Reaction Papers: Reaction Papers

Writing Arguments: Adapting the Argument Structure

Writing Arguments: Purposes of Argument

Writing Arguments: References to Consult for Writing Arguments

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Anticipate Active Opposition

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Determine Your Organization

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Develop Your Argument

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Introduce Your Argument

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - State Your Thesis or Proposition

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Write Your Conclusion

Writing Arguments: Types of Argument

Appendix A: Books to Help Improve Your Writing

Dictionaries

General Style Manuals

Researching on the Internet

Special Style Manuals

Writing Handbooks

Appendix B: Collaborative Writing and Peer Reviewing

Collaborative Writing: Assignments to Accompany the Group Project

Collaborative Writing: Informal Progress Report

Collaborative Writing: Issues to Resolve

Collaborative Writing: Methodology

Collaborative Writing: Peer Evaluation

Collaborative Writing: Tasks of Collaborative Writing Group Members

Collaborative Writing: Writing Plan

General Introduction

Peer Reviewing

Appendix C: Developing an Improvement Plan

Working with Your Instructor’s Comments and Grades

Appendix D: Writing Plan and Project Schedule

Devising a Writing Project Plan and Schedule

Reviewing Your Plan with Others

By using our website you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about how we use cookies by reading our  Privacy Policy .

Thesis Statements: Crafting a Claim Backed by Reasoning

Overview of thesis statements.

A clear and well-developed thesis statement is, in many cases, the backbone of most essays and research papers. The thesis statement presents your argument to your reader, making your stance or your position clear. A solid thesis statement can also provide structure for your writing. Even in non-argumentative writing, such as narrative essays, you can still use your thesis statement to express your purpose for writing.

In your thesis statement, you can provide the overarching claims you plan to make, as well as your reasoning for those claims. You can think of the thesis statement as being made up of two parts: the position and the reasoning. The position is the overall point you are making, and the reasoning is the explanation or logic behind that position. When you include both the position and the reasoning, your thesis statement shows your readers how you intend to structure your writing. For more on organization in your writing, see the Stone Writing Center (SWC) handout on this topic.

Argumentative Thesis Statements

When it comes to argumentative thesis statements, these statements are not argumentative for the sake of conflict; rather, you are writing to inform and persuade your readers, advancing their understanding of your topic. It might be helpful to even think of argumentative thesis statements like a road map that guides your writing as a whole. For more on argumentative writing, see the SWC handouts on this topic.

An argumentative thesis statement makes a clear assertion, taking a stance and providing details to support that stance. An effective argumentative thesis statement helps to persuade the reader by providing an outline of the main claims and reasoning for those claims.

Examples of Thesis Statements

Each of these sample thesis statements takes a stance on a subject and states a claim, then provides supporting details to convey the reasoning for the claim/s. The position or claim is in bold , and the reasoning is in italics .

Adults should eat apples more regularly because the fruit has many health benefits including lowering risk for heart disease, improving digestion, and promoting weight loss.

The Stone Writing Center is a convenient learning resource for Del Mar College as it provides a place where students can get help with their writing and offers multiple services for all writers.

Because of the convenience, low prices, and diverse options , people should get rid of cable and join streaming services instead.

Del Mar College is a great option to further one’s education because it offers many different academic programs, has a lower cost than surrounding universities, and provides dual-enrollment courses for high school students.

Because public libraries give citizens access to free books, technological resources, and other helpful learning programs, these institutions deserve more city funding.

To demonstrate the theme that family can be made through friends, The Avengers* movie uses characterization, conflict, and allusion. *Note: Movie titles, such as The Avengers , are usually italicized.

By providing readers with the main claim or position, as well as the reasoning or explanations for said claim, thesis statements allow you to effectively communicate the overall argument you intend to make in your writing.

Page last updated July 12, 2023.

• Translators
• Graphic Designers

Please enter the email address you used for your account. Your sign in information will be sent to your email address after it has been verified.

How to Prove a Thesis Statement: Analyzing an Argument

Phew! You've finally finished reading that giant book for your English class and deciding on an argument for your essay. Or maybe you just finished reading a series of lab reports for your biology class and figured out what you want to argue in your own paper. Either way, you have an argument, also known as a thesis statement , and now it's time to get into the analysis, also known as the proof and evidence.

You might be a little lost about what to do next. After all, all the reading and research is only half the battle in formulating and proving your argument. That's okay, we're going to simplify the process for you. First, let's define a thesis statement. After all, you can't begin to prove one if you haven't properly written one.

Thesis statement

Before we dive in to how you should go about proving your thesis statement, let's discuss some of the requirements for writing a thesis statement. Most generally, your thesis statement is your argument. Here are some requirements for your thesis statement:

• Must be argumentative : Hence, the argument part. Your thesis statement shouldn't be a fact. Sure, these are easy to provide evidence for because they're, well, facts, but that doesn't make for a very interesting paper. Nobody is going to argue with a fact, so people aren't going to be enticed by your factual paper. Instead, you want to narrow your focus and choose something that can be argued. So, let's hone those analytical and critical thinking skills and make a solid argument.
• Choose something unexplored : Some of the best thesis statements are the unexpected ones. What we mean by this is that some books and topics will cover popular thesis topics, meaning multiple people have probably already explored that argument. If you want to stand out from the crowd and introduce a new piece of research into the conversation, then you should find something that has limited research or maybe even no research. Who knows, maybe you'll inspire others in your field to explore your topic!
• Start small : This is in line with choosing something unexplored, but he best way to go about doing that is to start small and really narrow down your focus. If you're writing an essay on a five-hundred-page book, you might be completely lost in the pages, literally. If you choose something small to write your argument about, then you are most likely cutting those five hundred pages down to 10 or 15. Trust us, we've done it before, and it feels like a huge weight off our shoulders. But wait, doesn't that mean less material to work with? Isn't that bad? No! Despite what you may think, it's actually great to have less material to work with. This helps narrow your evidence, so you can closely analyze the material. Close reading becomes much easier and thus, your essay just got one step closer to expert material.
• Must discuss what you are going to explore : This might be obvious, but your thesis statement should give your readers insight into what your paper is about. It should grab your readers' attention and make them interested and invested in reading your paper. This is why we suggested choosing something small and unexplored. Readers will be curious about a topic they have little knowledge about, and you're their resident expert.
• Must be found at the end of the introduction : Your paper is going to be led by your thesis statement, so it's important to place it at the end of your introduction. You can think of it like a road map for the rest of your paper. If you don't have the map from the start, then you're going to get extremely lost on the rest of the journey. Trust us, we would know.

This may seem like quite a lot of requirements for a simple statement, but that's because a thesis is not just a statement. It's an argument. Now that we know what goes into a thesis statement, let's try writing one ourselves.

For example, let's say you're writing an essay technology use in classrooms. You might start off with this statement:

Many kids are bringing technology into the classroom, as students receive phones at younger ages than previously.

Is this a thesis statement? Not really. It is a fact that more and more kids are getting phones and other devices at younger and younger ages, and those devices are being brought into the classroom, with or without school approval. How can we make this into a thesis statement? You could take a stance on the topic.

For example, you might write:

Students should be allowed to bring technological devices into classrooms because it enriches the learning experience by providing them with an abundance of resources and it teaches them to use the tools at their disposal.

Now, this is a thesis statement. It's definitely argumentative, because not everyone will agree with your stance. That's fine, so long as you can prove your thesis statement. How do you do that? Without further ado, let's get into it!

Simple steps to prove your thesis

Now that we've finally established how to make sure you've written a proper thesis, it's time to prove your argument. This can be a bit of a daunting task. You don't want your thesis to be amazing just for your proof to fall flat. Fear not! We have compiled a list of steps to check off as you write the rest of your paper. By the end of this list, you'll have everything you need to know to decide if you've really proven your point.

• Keep track of patterns : One of the best pieces of advice we ever received from a professor was to keep track of patterns while you read. Wait a minute, how can I keep track of patterns if I already finished reading the book or source material? Well, you don't! This step actually requires you to think ahead, but don't worry, this will pay off majorly in the long run. For example, remember how we mentioned that five-hundred-page book you may be reading for class and how easy it may be for you to get lost in those pages? Here is a sure way to minimize any confusion! As you read, keep note of certain patterns you find interesting and thesis-worthy. This may be the repetition of a particular punctuation mark, or a character's behavior. Whatever the pattern may be, keeping track of it throughout the reading process will save you tons of time narrowing down your topic and evidence later on in the pre-writing phase.
• Gather evidence : This is why keeping track of patterns while you read is such a good idea: you'll have already gathered your evidence. If you didn't do that, however, there's no need to worry; you can still gather your evidence. What should your evidence look like? Your evidence will largely depend on what you're arguing and your field of study. For example, an English essay will most likely be peppered with direct quotations from the book you read, whether that be character dialogue, character interactions, or passages you found interesting and relevant. Meanwhile, if you're in a STEM field, your thesis statement may require more quantitative research . For some papers, you may wish to gather statistics and visuals such as charts and graphs to include as evidence. Regardless of what you're arguing, you must ensure that your evidence is relevant to proving your thesis. Do not throw in examples or images for the sake of word count—everything you include must matter.
• Analyze, analyze, analyze : We cannot stress this enough. Analysis is the key to proving your thesis statement. Your evidence will have very little meaning or sway if you don't explain its significance. If you provide evidence, you need to analyze it and, in your analysis, emphasize its relevance to proving your thesis. Why does this piece of evidence matter? That's what you need to ask yourself as you write. Do not merely provide a summary of the evidence or toss it in your essay without explanation. Instead, analyze every detail. Nothing is too big or small.
• Bring in an outside source : This is how to take your academic writing to the next level. There are most likely tons of experts in your field, and you're going to run into a lot of external research when you conduct your own. One of the best ways to prove your own thesis is to incorporate research from another academic into your own work. Maybe their research agrees with your own, or maybe it doesn't. Either way, you can use this to your advantage in your own writing. In fact, using research from a source that doesn't agree with your argument will actually make your writing more persuasive. You can use it as a way to acknowledge another argument, proving you've done your research, but then explain why your argument is stronger.
• Stay focused : One of the hardest parts about proving a thesis is remaining on topic. Wait, really? Yes, really! Your thesis should be located at the end of the introduction of your paper, which may be pages and pages above where you're currently writing body paragraph four, which means you may not be able to see your thesis. You may be thinking, just because I can't see my thesis doesn't mean I don't remember it. While this is true, sometimes it's easy to get lost in your own words. For example, maybe you found a piece of evidence you're really passionate about, so you devote a large chunk of time to close-reading and analyzing it, so much so that you've got yourself a whopping one-page body paragraph. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, this does increase the likelihood of confusion and rambling. So, remind yourself of what it is you're arguing and then ask yourself, does all of this prove my point, or did I go overboard?
• Stay organized : This is another point you may find to be a bit obvious, but it's actually really easy to get disorganized in the essay writing process. If you're disorganized, there's going to be a higher likelihood of you losing focus. We just finished stressing the importance of remaining focused, so don't let your scatterbrain tendencies get in the way of you writing an awesome argument. One way for you to remain organized it to use transitional statements. Each paragraph you write should feel cohesive and connected. Your reader shouldn't be left wondering why you talked about one thing in the second paragraph and then brought up something entirely different in the third. Since your evidence is all geared towards proving your thesis, these ideas should be relevant to each other. Using transitional statements at the beginning and end of each body paragraph is a great way to draw a clear connection between your ideas.
• Write your thesis last : Are we crazy? Possibly, but hear us out on this one. If you're like some of us, you actually find writing your entire essay then writing your thesis statement is a little easier. Have you ever sat in front of a blank document or notebook, scratching your head while you try to think of a potential thesis statement? We certainly have, and guess what? We wasted literal hours doing this! One technique that could help you is working backwards. You might not yet have an argument, but you have a specific topic you want to focus on, and you know which passages you want to include in your essay. So, start by close-reading and analyzing those passages. Once you've done this, think about what all your analysis has in common, and boom! You have the roots of your argument. Now you can work backwards and formulate that thesis to fit your evidence, not the other way around. If you aren't convinced, go back to our introduction. (In case you were wondering, we wrote that part last.)

Proving your point

If you managed to check off everything on both of our lists, then congratulations! You've not only written a killer thesis statement, but you've also thoroughly proven it! You're several steps closer to increasingly improving your academic writing and becoming an expert in your field. Now that you've written your thesis statement and body paragraphs, it's time for your conclusion , but we'll leave that for another time.

Header photo by Evgenia .

• Academic Writing Advice
• All Blog Posts
• Writing Advice
• Admissions Writing Advice
• Book Writing Advice
• Short Story Advice
• Employment Writing Advice
• Business Writing Advice
• Web Content Advice
• Article Writing Advice
• Magazine Writing Advice
• Grammar Advice
• Dialect Advice
• Editing Advice
• Freelance Advice
• Legal Writing Advice
• Poetry Advice
• Graphic Design Advice
• Logo Design Advice
• Translation Advice
• Blog Reviews
• Short Story Award Winners
• Scholarship Winners

Enhance your paper with our comprehensive editing services

“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  

36 Accesses

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.

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

Module 7: Drafting a Research Paper

Argument and thesis, learning objectives.

Recognize the difference between argument, working thesis, and thesis statement

Drafting the Argument

As we’ve seen, the argument is the overall claim being made by your essay, as well as the reasons given to support this claim. During the drafting phase, the argument is in a tricky transitional state. On the one hand, you don’t want to lose track of the overall argument; forgetting about the argument can cause your paper to meander into side-points, stall out at dead-end details, or bloat with irrelevant data. On the other hand, you shouldn’t cling too tight to your initial conception of the argument. Over the course of drafting, the argument will grow and change. Sometimes, after exploring all the evidence in the body of your paper, you may find yourself arguing nearly the opposite of your original point!

The Working Thesis

To give yourself the flexibility to follow the twists and turns of your argument without locking it down too early, it can be helpful to formulate a  working thesis for the drafting phase of your project. The working thesis is essentially a first pass at an answer to your research question. Essentially, it’s there to keep you from wandering too far off course, but it should be open-ended enough that it doesn’t pre-determine your findings.

• Research Question: Should grade school students be taught cursive?
• Working Thesis: Cursive instruction is still important, since some students benefit from learning cursive.
• Final Thesis : Because the research on the advantages of cursive instruction is still inconclusive, educators need to evaluate this activity within a dynamic framework that considers both the benefits and the opportunity costs of setting time aside to teach cursive.

Your thesis is the final, polished statement that should appear in your completed paper. Once you’ve developed your argument, explored your research questions, examined a variety of sources, and combined it all into a well-organized paper, you’ll want to return to your thesis statement.

With all the pieces in place, it’s time to refine that rough working thesis and turn it into a clear, refined claim. This finalized thesis should briefly summarize your argument and show the reader why they should agree with your conclusions.

• Argument and Thesis. Authored by : Lindsey Fliger. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution