David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Perspectives on Science 15 (3):295-326 (2007)
: Where there are cases of underdetermination in scientific controversies, such as the case of the molecular clock, scientists may direct the course and terms of dispute by playing off the multidimensional framework of theory evaluation. This is because assessment strategies themselves are underdetermined. Within the framework of assessment, there are a variety of trade-offs between different strategies as well as shifting emphases as specific strategies are given more or less weight in assessment situations. When a strategy is underdetermined, scientists can change the dynamics of a controversy by making assessments using different combinations of evaluation strategies and/or weighting whatever strategies are in play in different ways. Following an underdetermination strategy does not end or resolve a scientific dispute. Consequently, manipulating underdetermination is a feature of controversy dynamics and not controversy closure
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Michael R. Dietrich (1998). Paradox and Persuasion: Negotiating the Place of Molecular Evolution Within Evolutionary Biology. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 31 (1):85 - 111.
Robert A. Skipper (2002). The Persistence of the R.A. Fisher-Sewall Wright Controversy. Biology and Philosophy 17 (3):341-367.
Gregory J. Morgan (1998). Emile Zuckerkandl, Linus Pauling, and the Molecular Evolutionary Clock, 1959-1965. Journal of the History of Biology 31 (2):155 - 178.
Michael R. Dietrich (1994). The Origins of the Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Journal of the History of Biology 27 (1):21 - 59.
David Bloor (1981). The Strengths of the Strong Programme. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11 (2):199.
Citations of this work BETA
Alfonso Arroyo-Santos, Mark E. Olson & Francisco Vergara-Silva (2015). Practice Oriented Controversies and Borrowed Epistemic Support in Current Evolutionary Biology. The Case of Phylogeography. Perspectives on Science 23 (3):310-334.
Alfred Moore & John Beatty (2010). Should We Aim for Consensus? Episteme 7 (3):198-214.
Patrick Forber (2008). Forever Beyond Our Grasp? Biology and Philosophy 23 (1):135-141.
Alfonso Arroyo-Santos, Mark E. Olson & Francisco Vergara-Silva (2015). Practice-Oriented Controversies and Borrowed Epistemic Credibility in Current Evolutionary Biology: Phylogeography as a Case Study. Perspectives on Science 25 (3):310-334.
Patrick Forber (2009). Spandrels and a Pervasive Problem of Evidence. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):247-266.
Similar books and articles
Martin Carrier (2011). Underdetermination as an Epistemological Test Tube: Expounding Hidden Values of the Scientific Community. Synthese 180 (2):189 - 204.
John D. Norton (forthcoming). Must Evidence Underdetermine Theory. The Challenge of the Social and the Pressure of Practice:17--44.
Peter Godfrey-Smith (2008). Recurrent Transient Underdetermination and the Glass Half Full. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 137 (1):141 - 148.
Ian McDiarmid (2008). Underdetermination and Meaning Indeterminacy: What is the Difference? [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 69 (3):279 - 293.
P. D. Magnus (2005). Reckoning the Shape of Everything: Underdetermination and Cosmotopology. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (3):541-557.
P. D. Magnus (2003). Underdetermination and the Claims of Science. PhD Thesis:1-191.
Samir Okasha (2002). Underdetermination, Holism and the Theory/Data Distinction. Philosophical Quarterly 52 (208):303-319.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #211,821 of 1,781,487 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #207,207 of 1,781,487 )
How can I increase my downloads?