Evidence Enriched | Philosophy of Science | Cambridge Core

Traditionally, empiricism has relied on the specialness of human observation, yet science is rife with sophisticated instrumentation and techniques. The present article advances a conception of empirical evidence applicable to actual scientific practice. I argue that this conception elucidates how the results of scientific research can be repurposed across diverse epistemic contexts: it helps to make sense of how evidence accumulates across theory change, how different evidence can be amalgamated and used jointly, and how the same evidence can be used to constrain competing theories in the service of breaking local underdetermination.

Anderl, Sibylle. 2016. “Astronomy and Astrophysics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science, ed. Humphreys, Paul, 652–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bogen, James, and Woodward, James. 2005. “Evading the IRS.” In Idealization XII: Correcting the Model; Idealization and Abstraction in the Sciences, Poznań Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, Vol. 86, ed. Martin R. Jones and Nancy Cartwright, 233–67. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Chang, Hasok, and Fisher, Grant. 2011. “What the Ravens Really Teach Us: The Intrinsic Contextuality of Evidence.” In Proceedings of the British Academy 171: Evidence, Inference and Enquiry, ed. Dawid, Philip, Twining, William, and Vasilaki, Dimitra, 345–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Clark, David H., and Stephenson, F. Richard. 1977. The Historical Supernovae. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Colaço, David. 2018. “An Investigation of Scientific Phenomena.” PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar

Duhem, Pierre. 1954/1954. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Repr. New York: Atheneum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Franklin, Allan. 2002. Selectivity and Discord. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar

Franklin, Allan 2015. “The Theory-Ladenness of Experiment.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 46 (1): 155–66..CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Galison, Peter. 1987. How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Green, David A. 2015. “Historical Supernova Explosions in Our Galaxy and Their Remnants.” In New Insights from Recent Studies in Historical Astronomy: Following in the Footsteps of F. Richard Stephenson; a Meeting to Honor F. Richard Stephenson on His 70th Birthday, ed. Orchiston, Wayne, Green, David A., and Strom, Richard, 91–100. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Howlett, Peter, and Morgan, Mary S., eds. 2010. How Well Do Facts Travel? The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hubble, Edwin. 1929. “A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 15 (3): 168–73..Google ScholarPubMed

Jenni, Peter, et al. 2003. ATLAS High-Level Trigger, Data-Acquisition and Controls. Technical Design Report ATLAS. Geneva: CERN.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1975. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Laymon, Ronald. 1988. “The Michelson-Morley Experiment and the Appraisal of Theories.” In Scrutinizing Science: Empirical Studies of Scientific Change, ed. Donovan, Arthur, Laudan, Larry, and Laudan, Rachel, 245–66. Baltimore and London: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Leonelli, Sabina. 2009. “On the Locality of Data and Claims about Phenomena.” Philosophy of Science 76 (5): 737–49..CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leonelli, Sabina 2013. “Integrating Data to Acquire New Knowledge: Three Modes of Integration in Plant Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (4): 503–14..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Leonelli, Sabina 2015. “What Counts as Scientific Data? A Relational Framework.” Philosophy of Science 82:810–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Leonelli, Sabina 2016. Data-Centric Biology: A Philosophical Case Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lipton, Peter. 2001. “History of Empiricism.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, ed. Smelser, Neil J. and Baltes, Paul B., 4481–85. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Dana. 2018. “The Role of Local Knowledge in Mobilizing Data.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar

McDougall, Ian, and Harrison, T. Mark. 1999. Geochronology and Thermochronology by the 40Ar/39Ar Method. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Palmer, Carole L., Weber, Nicholas M., and Cragin, Melissa H. 2012. “The Analytic Potential of Scientific Data: Understanding Re-use Value.” Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 48 (1): 1–10..Google Scholar

Perović, Slobodan. 2017. “Experimenter’s Regress Argument, Empiricism, and the Calibration of the Large Hadron Collider.” Synthese 194 (2): 313–32..CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Collaboration, Planck. 2016. “Planck 2015 Results XIII: Cosmological Parameters.” Astronomy and Astrophysics 594 (A13): 1–63.Google Scholar

Quine, Quine Willard Van. 1951. “Main Trends in Recent Philosophy: Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” Philosophical Review 60 (1): 20–43..CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Railton, Peter. 1981. “Probability, Explanation, and Information.” Synthese 48 (2): 233–56..CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stephenson, F. Richard, and Green, David A. 2002. Historical Supernovae and Their Remnants. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Fraassen, Bas C. 1984. “Theory Comparison and Relevant Evidence.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science: Testing Scientific Theories, ed. Earman, John, 27–42. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Earman, John 2008. Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Woodward, James F. 2011. “Data and Phenomena: A Restatement and Defense.” Synthese 182:165–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar