Epistemic Functions of Replicability in Experimental Sciences: Defending the Orthodox View.

IF 0.9 4区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Foundations of Science Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-18 DOI:10.1007/s10699-023-09901-4
Michał Sikorski, Mattia Andreoletti
{"title":"Epistemic Functions of Replicability in Experimental Sciences: Defending the Orthodox View.","authors":"Michał Sikorski, Mattia Andreoletti","doi":"10.1007/s10699-023-09901-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Replicability is widely regarded as one of the defining features of science and its pursuit is one of the main postulates of meta-research, a discipline emerging in response to the replicability crisis. At the same time, replicability is typically treated with caution by philosophers of science. In this paper, we reassess the value of replicability from an epistemic perspective. We defend the orthodox view, according to which replications are always epistemically useful, against the more prudent view that claims that it is useful in very limited circumstances. Additionally, we argue that we can learn more about the original experiment and the limits of the discovered effect from replications at different levels. We hold that replicability is a crucial feature of experimental results and scientists should continue to strive to secure it.</p>","PeriodicalId":55146,"journal":{"name":"Foundations of Science","volume":" ","pages":"1071-1088"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11569024/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foundations of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-023-09901-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Replicability is widely regarded as one of the defining features of science and its pursuit is one of the main postulates of meta-research, a discipline emerging in response to the replicability crisis. At the same time, replicability is typically treated with caution by philosophers of science. In this paper, we reassess the value of replicability from an epistemic perspective. We defend the orthodox view, according to which replications are always epistemically useful, against the more prudent view that claims that it is useful in very limited circumstances. Additionally, we argue that we can learn more about the original experiment and the limits of the discovered effect from replications at different levels. We hold that replicability is a crucial feature of experimental results and scientists should continue to strive to secure it.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
实验科学中可复制性的认知功能:捍卫正统观点
可重复性被广泛认为是科学的决定性特征之一,追求可重复性也是元研究的主要假设之一,元研究是为应对可重复性危机而兴起的一门学科。与此同时,科学哲学家通常对可重复性持谨慎态度。在本文中,我们从认识论的角度重新评估了可复制性的价值。我们捍卫了正统的观点,即复制在认识论上总是有用的,而反对更谨慎的观点,即在非常有限的情况下有用。此外,我们还认为,我们可以从不同层次的复制中更多地了解原始实验和已发现效应的局限性。我们认为,可复制性是实验结果的一个重要特征,科学家应继续努力确保它的可复制性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Foundations of Science
Foundations of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: Foundations of Science focuses on methodological and philosophical topics of foundational significance concerning the structure and the growth of science. It serves as a forum for exchange of views and ideas among working scientists and theorists of science and it seeks to promote interdisciplinary cooperation. Since the various scientific disciplines have become so specialized and inaccessible to workers in different areas of science, one of the goals of the journal is to present the foundational issues of science in a way that is free from unnecessary technicalities yet faithful to the scientific content. The aim of the journal is not simply to identify and highlight foundational issues and problems, but to suggest constructive solutions to the problems. The editors of the journal admit that various sciences have approaches and methods that are peculiar to those individual sciences. However, they hold the view that important truths can be discovered about and by the sciences and that truths transcend cultural and political contexts. Although properly conducted historical and sociological inquiries can explain some aspects of the scientific enterprise, the editors believe that the central foundational questions of contemporary science can be posed and answered without recourse to sociological or historical methods.
期刊最新文献
Form and Information in Biology—An Evolutionary Perspective Model Organism Databases and Algorithms: A Computing Mechanism for Cross-species Research About the Concept of Molecular Structure Understanding the Interaction Between the Divergence of Science and the Convergence of Technology Based on Polanyi’s Thoughts on Science Between Understanding and Control: Science as a Cultural Product
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1