Reijula, Samuli and Blanco Sequeiros, Sofia (2024) Persistent evidential discordance. [Preprint]
This is the latest version of this item.
![[img]](https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text (final manuscript version)
reijula_and_blanco_sequeiros2024.pdf - Accepted Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (379kB) |
Abstract
Successful replication is a hallmark of scientific truth. Discordant evidence refers to the situation where findings from different studies of the same phenomenon do not agree. Although evidential discordance can spur scientific discovery, it also gives scientists a reason to rationally disagree and thereby compromises the formation of scientific consensus. Discordance indicates that facts about the phenomenon of interest remain unsettled and that a finding may not be reliably replicable. We single out persistent evidential discordance as a particularly difficult problem for the epistemology of science, and distinguish between different causes of evidential discordance – non-systematic error, noise, and bias. Unlike discordance brought about by non-systematic error or noise, persistent discordance often cannot be rationally resolved by temporarily suspending judgment and collecting more data within existing lines of inquiry. We suggest that the analysis of enriched lines of evidence (Boyd 2018) provides a useful approach to diagnosing and evaluating episodes of persistent evidential discordance. Attention to the line of evidence, which extends from raw data to an evidential claim supporting or disconfirming a hypothesis, can help researchers to locate the source of discordance between inconsistent findings. We argue that reference to metadata, information about how the data were generated and processed, can be a key step in the process of resolving normative questions of correctness, i.e., whether a line of evidence provides a legitimate answer to a particular research question. We illustrate our argument with two cases: the alleged discovery of gravitational waves in the late 1960s, and the social priming controversy in experimental psychology.
| Export/Citation: | EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL |
| Social Networking: |
| Item Type: | Preprint | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Creators: |
|
|||||||||
| Additional Information: | forthcoming in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science | |||||||||
| Keywords: | evidence, discordant evidence, line of evidence, inscription, metadata, replication | |||||||||
| Subjects: | General Issues > Data General Issues > Evidence General Issues > Experimentation |
|||||||||
| Depositing User: | Dr Samuli Reijula | |||||||||
| Date Deposited: | 21 Jun 2024 05:14 | |||||||||
| Last Modified: | 21 Jun 2024 05:14 | |||||||||
| Item ID: | 23569 | |||||||||
| Official URL: | https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/7315... | |||||||||
| Subjects: | General Issues > Data General Issues > Evidence General Issues > Experimentation |
|||||||||
| Date: | 2024 | |||||||||
| URI: | https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/23569 |
Available Versions of this Item
-
Persistent evidential discordance. (deposited 14 Jun 2024 16:51)
- Persistent evidential discordance. (deposited 21 Jun 2024 05:14) [Currently Displayed]
Monthly Views for the past 3 years
Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years
Plum Analytics
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
![[feed]](http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/feed-icon-32x32.png){kind=icon}