Fredrik Andersen

• Andersen, Fredrik & Dechsling, Anders (2021). Nudging, hva er det og bør vi benytte oss av det? Norsk Tidsskrift for Atferdsanalyse (NTA). ISSN 0809-781X. 48(2).
• Andersen, Fredrik & Rocca, Elena (2020). Underdetermination and evidence-based policy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. ISSN 1369-8486. 84. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2020.101335. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Andersen, Fredrik; Anjum, Rani Lill & Rocca, Elena (2019). Philosophy of Biology: Philosophical bias is the one bias that science cannot avoid. eLIFE. ISSN 2050-084X. doi: 10.7554/eLife.44929. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Scientists seek to eliminate all forms of bias from their research. However, all scientists also make assumptions of a non-empirical nature about topics such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research. Here, we argue that since these 'philosophical biases' cannot be avoided, they need to be debated critically by scientists and philosophers of science.

• Anjum, Rani Lill; Mumford, Stephen D & Andersen, Fredrik (2018). Causation: Causation and quantum mechanics. I Anjum, Rani Lill & Mumford, Stephen D (Red.), What tends to be : The philosophy of dispositional modality. Routledge. ISSN 978-1-138-541979. s. 64–82.
• Rocca, Elena & Andersen, Fredrik (2017). How biological background assumptions influence scientific risk evaluation of stacked genetically modified plants: an analysis of research hypotheses and argumentations. Life Sciences, Society and Policy. ISSN 2195-7819. 13(11). doi: 10.1186/s40504-017-0057-7. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Scientific risk evaluations are constructed by specific evidence, value judgements and biological background assumptions. The latter are the framework-setting suppositions we apply in order to understand some new phenomenon. That background assumptions co-determine choice of methodology, data interpretation, and choice of relevant evidence is an uncontroversial claim in modern basic science. Furthermore, it is commonly accepted that, unless explicated, disagreements in background assumptions can lead to misunderstanding as well as miscommunication. Here, we extend the discussion on background assumptions from basic science to the debate over genetically modified (GM) plants risk assessment. In this realm, while the different political, social and economic values are often mentioned, the identity and role of background assumptions at play are rarely examined. We use an example from the debate over risk assessment of stacked genetically modified plants (GM stacks), obtained by applying conventional breeding techniques to GM plants. There are two main regulatory practices of GM stacks: (i) regulate as conventional hybrids and (ii) regulate as new GM plants. We analyzed eight papers representative of these positions and found that, in all cases, additional premises are needed to reach the stated conclusions. We suggest that these premises play the role of biological background assumptions and argue that the most effective way toward a unified framework for risk analysis and regulation of GM stacks is by explicating and examining the biological background assumptions of each position. Once explicated, it is possible to either evaluate which background assumptions best reflect contemporary biological knowledge, or to apply Douglas' 'inductive risk' argument.

• Andersen, Fredrik & Jonas Becker, Arenhart (2016). Metaphysics within science: Against radical naturalism. Metaphilosophy. ISSN 0026-1068. 47(2), s. 159–180. doi: 10.1111/meta.12175. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Andersen, Fredrik; Mathisen, Øyvind & olsen, morten (2004). Utagering og jobbtilfredshet. Diskriminanten. ISSN 0801-0536. 1 og 2, s. 35–42.

Se alle arbeider i Cristin

• Løkke, Jon Arne; Orm, Stian; Haagensen, Gunn Elisabeth; Andersen, Fredrik & Strømgren, Børge (2022). Tiltak for å fremme psykologisk fleksibilitet hos personer med autismespekterdiagnoser: En litteraturgjennomgang.
• Løkke, Jon Arne & Andersen, Fredrik (2021). Vernepleierpodden Fagspesial 5+5, fem filosofer og fem psykologer (podcast). [Internett]. Spotify.
• Andersen, Fredrik & Løkke, Jon Arne (2021). En videreutvikling av Sjekklisten med verdiavklaring og verdivekting; innspill fra interessentteori. Vernepleier.no.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2021). Ytringsfrihet og etikk.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2021). Atferdsanalyse og individuell frihet.
• Andersen, Fredrik & Løkke, Jon Arne (2021). Videreutvikling av Sjekklisten og verdiprosesser i hexaflexen med verdiavklaring og verdivekting; innspill fra interessent teori.
• Andersen, Fredrik & Rocca, Elena (2021). Making sense of expert disagreement in the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Andersen, Fredrik & Løkke, Jon Arne (2020). Hører humor hjemme i akademia? Khrono.no. ISSN 1894-8995.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2020). Social media and censorship – tensions over social sustainability.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2020). Idrett, tilhørighet og ensomhet. Hva er idrettsforeningens rolle? .
• Andersen, Fredrik (2020). hvem er eksperter egentlig og burde vi lytte til dem?
• Andersen, Fredrik (2020). Philosophical BIAS: Metafysikk som grunnlag for vitenskapelig uenighet.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2019). har vi fri vilje?
• Andersen, Fredrik (2019). Hvem er eksperter og når skal vi lytte til dem? . Fredriksstad Blad.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2019). Vern, frigjøring og bruk av av egen vilje. [Internett]. eksistenspodden.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2019). Styres vi av fysikkens lover eller av fri vilje? Fredriksstad Blad.
• Andersen, Fredrik & Dechsling, Anders (2019). Nudging, bør vi egentlig drive med det?
• Andersen, Fredrik (2018). Hvor langt kan staten gå for å hjelpe oss å bli bedre borgere?
• Andersen, Fredrik (2018). Er det grenser for ytringsfrihet? .
• Andersen, Fredrik (2018). Bør vi begrense ytringsfriheten? Fredrikstad Blad.
• Anjum, Rani Lill; Rocca, Elena & Andersen, Fredrik (2018). What is Philosophical Bias in Science.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2017). Sannhet og ideologi i postfakta-samfunnet.
• Rocca, Elena & Andersen, Fredrik (2016). Same evidence, different assessment: role of primary suppositions in the scientific discernment of risk.
• Rocca, Elena & Andersen, Fredrik (2013). Of mice and men Do animal models inform us about human conditions?
• Andersen, Fredrik (2013). Physical postulates and primitive metaphysical notions.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2013). Philosophy in physics.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2013). some things must stay, metaphysics within science.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2012). Towards a Unified Metaphysical Framework for Physics. Vis sammendrag

  Abstract The last century of physics has given us two main conceptual frameworks. Quantum Mechanics is most commonly seen as presenting a non-local, non-causal universe while Relativity Theory is a local, causal theory with differing concepts of space and time. Attempts at reconciliation have predominantly taken the form of reinterpreting Quantum Mechanics in relativistic terms, by for instance maintaining the relativistic version of the light principle. Since there are unclear parts of Relativity theory (as for instance the heuristic nature of rods and clocks) and others that are unexplained in the theory (for instance the nature of light and the basic constituents of the measuring apparatus), I propose a different approach. By applying relevant parts of Bohr’s philosophy of physics to Relativity Theory we might come closer to a unified metaphysical framework for macro and micro physics.

• Andersen, Fredrik (2011). From phenomenon to science.
• Andersen, Fredrik; Myrstad, Johan Arnt; Anjum, Rani Lill & Mumford, Stephen D (2017). Experience and theory: a defense of the kantian a priori and Kepler’s philosophy of science in light of modern space-time physics. NMBU.

Se alle arbeider i Cristin