Abstract
Experimental data are often acclaimed on the grounds that they can be consistently generated. They are, it is said, reproducible. In this paper I describe how this feature of experimental-data (their ‘pragmatic reliability’) leads to their epistemic worth (their ‘epistemic reliability’). An important part of my description is the supposition that experimental procedures are to certain extent fixed and stable. Various illustrations from the actual practice of science are introduced, the most important coming at the end of the paper with a discussion of Ray Davis' 1967 solar-neutrino detection experiment (as it is portrayed in Pinch, 1980).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baird, D. and T. Faust: 1990, ‘Scientific Instruments, Scientific Progress and the Cyclotron’,The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 41, 147–75.
Bechtel, W.: 1990, ‘Scientific Evidence: Creating and Evaluating Experimental Instruments and Research Techniques’, in A. Fine, M. Forbes and L. Wessels (eds.),PSA 1990, Vol. 1, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 559–72.
Bogen, J. and J. Woodward: 1992, ‘Observations, Theories and the Evolution of the Human Spirit’,Philosophy of Science 59, 590–611.
Collins, H.: 1984, ‘When Do Scientists Prefer To Vary Their Experiments?’,Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 15, 169–74.
DeBoer, G. E.: 1991,A History of Ideas in Science Education, Teachers College Press, New York.
Fodor, J.: 1983,The Modularity of Mind, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Fodor, J.: 1984, ‘Observation Reconsidered’,Philosophy of Science 51, 23–43.
Franklin, A.: 1986,The Neglect of Experiment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Friedlander, G. and J. Wesener: 1987, ‘Solar Neutrinos: Experimental Approaches’,Science 235, 760–65.
Galison, P.: 1987,How Experiments End, Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Gerry, H.: 1925, ‘The Need and Use of a Scientific Measure of the Results of the Teaching of Chemistry’,School Science and Mathematics 25, 157–68.
Hacking, I: 1983,Representing and Intervening, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hones, M.: 1990, ‘Reproducibility as a Methodological Imperative in Experimental Research’,PSA 1990, Vol. 1, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 585–99.
Kuhn, T.: 1962,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Marr, D.: 1982,Vision, W. H. Freeman, New York.
Millikan, R.: 1911, ‘The Isolation of an Ion, a Precise Measurement of Its Charge, and the Correction of Stokes Law’,Physical Review 32, 349–97.
Pinch, T.: 1980, ‘Theoreticians and the Production of Experimental Anomaly: The Case of Solar Neutrinos’, in K. D. Knorr, R. Krohn and R. Whitely (eds.),The Social Process of Scientific Investigation. Sociology of the Sciences, Vol. IV, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 77–106.
Stewart, A. W.: 1935, ‘Measuring Ability to Apply Principles’,School Science and Mathematics 35, 695–99.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hudson, R.G. Reliability, pragmatic and epistemic. Erkenntnis 40, 71–86 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01128716
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01128716