In defense of experimental data in a relativistic milieu
(1995)
| Abstract | The objectivity and utility of experimental data as evidential support for knowledge-claims may be found suspect when it is shown that (a) the interpretation of experimental data is inevitably complicated by social factors like experimenter effects, subject effects and demand characteristics, (b) social factors which affect experimental data are themselves sensitive to societal conventions or cultural values, (c) all observations (including experimental observations) are necessarily theory-dependent, and (d) experimental data have limited generality because they are collected in artificial settings. These critiques of experimental data are answered by showing that (i) not all empirical studies are experiments, (ii) experimental methodology is developed to exclude alternate interpretations of data (including explanations in terms of social influences), (iii) theoretical disputes and their settlement take place in the context of a particular frame of reference, and (iv) objectivity can be achieved with observations neutral to the to-be-corroborated theory despite theory-dependent observations if distinctions are made (a) between prior observation and evidential observation and (b) between a to-be-corroborated theory and the theory underlying the identity of evidential response. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesH. J. Grosz & J. A. Zimmerman (1965). Experimental Analysis of Hysterical Blindness: A Follow-Up Report and New Experimental Data. Archives of General Psychiatry 13:255-60.
Robert C. Cummins (1998). Reflection on Reflective Equilibrium. In Michael DePaul & William Ramsey (eds.), Rethinking Intuition. Rowman & Littlefield.
Werner Ehm (2005). Meta-Analysis O Mind-Matter Experiments: A Statistical Modeling Perspective. Mind and Matter 3 (1):85-132.
Jorge P. Zubelli (2010). On the Calibration of a Size-Structured Population Model From Experimental Data. Acta Biotheoretica 58 (4):405-413.
José Luis Bermúdez (2011). The Force-Field Puzzle and Mindreading in Non-Human Primates. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2 (3):397-410.
Jaakko Hintikka (2005). Omitting Data—Ethical or Strategic Problem? Synthese 145 (2):169 - 176.
Donald L. Rowe & James Wright (2001). Using Experimental Data and Analysis in EEG Modelling. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):828-829.
Sylvia Culp (1995). Objectivity in Experimental Inquiry: Breaking Data-Technique Circles. Philosophy of Science 62 (3):438-458.
Siu L. Chow (1992). Acceptance of a Theory: Justification or Rhetoric? Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 22 (4):447–474.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads1 ( #274,982 of 549,198 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
