Introduction
Values are the principles that people think are important, for example, honesty, fairness and respect. Knowledge refers to ideas and perspectives we hold as truth because we have valid reasons. The pursuit of knowledge refers to the process of validating ideas and proving them to become knowledge. A changing value may offer direction but its value is dependent on the reason for the change and whether the change can be critically examined. Values may keep their function and retain their usefulness as guidelines in the face of new evidence or changing ethical issues. This means that value change is a directional rather than a destabilizing force for knowledge-seeking knowers. This essay is an examination of the Natural Sciences and the Arts. In the natural sciences, values primarily affect research methods and ethical limits and also the treatment of participants, and empirical evidence restricts scientific claims. In the Arts, values are more closely related to interpretation and meaning and therefore altering values can impact on the production and interpretation of knowledge.
Natural Sciences
Under the assumption of an underlying stable ethical purpose, the changes in values can be used to guide knowledge effectively in the Natural Sciences. Research is a process of explaining the world through scientific knowledge, but research also entails making decisions about what to study and about treating the experimental participants of research. Values thus affect the circumstances in which knowledge may be sought. The Declaration of Helsinki is a good illustration of this. In the aftermath of the Second World War, as a result of unethical medical practices in that period, the World Medical Association was founded in 1947. In 1964, it embraced the Declaration to create moral guidelines for research with human subjects (Bibbins-Domingo et al., 2024, p.3). The World Medical Association published a new revision in October 2024. The revision is viewed as a response to global ethical issues and growing need to be fair with inclusion in research (Bibbins-Domingo et al., 2024, p.3). The key is not that the rules have changed. The ethical standing of safeguarding the rights of research subjects did not disappear. That value changed, but only in the context of new situations. These standards inform knowledge by providing guidelines as to which studies can continue and what consent must be gathered and which questions can be answered. The usefulness of a study is not enough to justify it. It should also be conducted according to ethical standards. Therefore, when the values can transform to respond to new information and social issues while maintaining a fixed purpose, the change in values can give direction. Foad et al. (2021, p.7) conducted four studies with 934 participants in total, which revealed that people believed that their values were evolving over time. But the values participants were likely to have in the future still indicated what they planned to do, indicating that change does not act alone to eliminate their guiding function.
On the other hand, there is a counter-argument that science should be value free as empirical facts do not change based on social preferences. Society's new moral standards do not make the properties of a cell or a planet different. When values keep changing, they might affect research priorities in a manner that will divert from the search for truth. Medical research has had one big mistake in its history. When the Declaration of Helsinki was written, unethical research had already been done. This indicates that value changing can lead to late guiding of knowledge. The consequences of harmful practices that are accepted by societies for decades cannot be eliminated by subsequent ethical changes. Slowly varying values might then offer inadequate protection. But this is not a complete rebuttal of the argument. Values are not a measure of the truth or falsity of a scientific observation, but rather they help guide the investigations and applications of knowledge by scientists. Most important of all, values like honesty, evidence and openness to criticism are essential for revising ethical standards. Harmful practices can be identified by scientific communities, standards can be challenged and new rules be introduced by mechanisms for correction. So, the counter-argument implies that values can change and that the stable core is crucial.
The Arts
In the Arts, the link between values and knowledge is more direct. Artistic knowledge has the capacity to share experiences, identities, history and interpretation. Thus, the reinterpretation of values will affect the meaning of the society, the representation of their interpretation of an artwork, and who they take into account. This process is illustrated in museum collections. The Smithsonian Institution has a shared stewardship and ethical returns policy adopted in April 2022. The policy recognized that there has been an evolution in ethical standards regarding collecting and that the institution had objects it would not collect in today's era (Smithsonian Institution, 2022, p.4). Germany and Nigeria signed a deal in July 2022 to establish a process for the repatriation of Benin Bronzes that were removed from Africa in the 19th century (Associated Press, 2022, p.3). Increased attention to respect for source communities prompts museums to explore contextual issues and to dialogue with source communities of contested objects. This knowledge is enriched, as an object may be interpreted as a work of art and as a sign of colonialism, of culture, of historical loss. Honesty with the past is still significant, and its use is more essential and expansive. In this sense, changes in values here go beyond changing institutional behavior and they change the questions asked about the artistic objects, and can enhance the knowledge the objects offer.
The best rebuttal to this is that if values in art were to shift over time with fashion or individual tastes and preferences, then the judgment of art would be elusive to be called knowledge. Interpretations of a painting, sculpture or song are never as likely to have one answer that can be substantiated independently as scientific claims are. When communities interpret the same artwork according to their own values, they might get different interpretations. This raises the question of whether changing values generate guidance or just more opinions. This is illustrated in the case of the Benin Bronzes. In 2022, the Associated Press (AP) reported that the British Museum had refused to repatriate some of the Benin artifacts but accepted the need to study the history of these items. Meanwhile, Germany and Nigeria were moving towards returning objects. Institutions that were concurrent in this time frame thus came to different conclusions, invoking different priorities. This conflict highlights the fact that values can lead to uncertainty and not consensus. However, all is not lost if there is disagreement, as artistic knowledge remains meaningful. It can bring forth reasons for interpretations from knowers and make them consider knowledge that they had not previously considered. Foad et al. (2021) discovered that older participants were more likely to acknowledge a clash between values, for instance, concern for others versus concern for oneself. Recognizing competing values can thus be part of mature reasoning. Value change can contribute to an increase in knowledge in the Arts when disagreement is followed by interpretation based on evidence and critical discussion.
Synthesis and Evaluation
Two AOKs illustrate how changing values can influence knowledge, and how they do so differently. In the Natural Sciences, values predominantly influence methods of and boundaries to knowledge production as well as the societal responsibilities. Empirical evidence still leads to limits on the scientific claims. In the Arts, values extend beyond knowledge itself, as cultural and historical interpretations are important components of interpretation. The interpretive consequences of value change are thus greater in the Arts. The reasons in favor of value change are best when the change is as a corrective, not replacement. The Declaration of Helsinki demonstrates the possibility of change in ethical standards while preserving their aim of “safeguarding the rights and wellbeing of the research participants.” The Benin Bronzes illustrate that a reinterpretation of values can uncover the dimensions of artworks not seen before. In both, change occurs because of evidence of harm, historical inquiry, and institutional questioning and evolving conceptions of responsibility. The counter-arguments bring up an important point: Value change does not necessarily equal progress. Perspectives can be excluded again like in the past, and differences can go unresolved. The examples are also predominantly from the West, and therefore are not representative of all cultural orientations to values. Two examples are not sufficient to draw a general conclusion.
Conclusion
Values are not fixed and need not lead the way in search of knowledge. Fidelity is based on continuity and change. Within the Natural Sciences, consistent adherence to the principles of honesty, evidence and safeguarding of participants can help to establish respect for ethics. Value changes can affect interpretation in the Arts, and might expose new aspects of the subject that were not in previous standards, but might also result in misunderstanding and disagreement. A change is a change that occurs when the evidence, experiences, or moral issues from the prior approach are inadequate and cause knowledge to grow. It undermines it if it's a value that is changed without being considered. When values change, knowers should thus ask three questions: What remains the same? Why is it that the value has altered? What would have been the name of the one who was excluded in the previous or new job? These questions enable values to change and still support the pursuit of knowledge.
