Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-d5hhr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-20T12:20:52.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

WHY NOT ALL EVIDENCE IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2017

Carlos Santana Open the ORCID record for Carlos Santana [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Data which constitute satisfactory evidence in other contexts are sometimes not treated as valid evidence in the context of scientific confirmation. I give a justificatory explanation of this fact, appealing to the incentives, biases, and social situatedness of scientists.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 209 - 227
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Achinstein, P. 1995. ‘Are Empirical Evidence Claims A Priori?’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 46: 447–73.Google Scholar
Achinstein, P. 2001. The Book of Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, A. V. 1992. ‘A Simple Model of Herd Behavior.’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107: 797–817.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D. and Funder, D. C. 2007. ‘Psychology as the Science of Self-reports and Finger Movements: Whatever Happened to Actual Behavior?’ Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2: 396–403.Google Scholar
Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D. and Welch, I. 1998. ‘Learning From the Behavior of Others: Conformity, Fads, and Informational Cascades.’ Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12: 151–70.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. P. 2013. ‘Policing Epistemic Communities.’ Episteme, 10: 403–16.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1947. ‘On the Application of Inductive Logic.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 8: 133–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. 1962. Logical Foundations of Probability, 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
de Solla Price, D. J. 1965. ‘Networks of Scientific Papers.’ Science, 149(3683): 510–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. and Brighton, H. 2009. ‘Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences.’ Topics in Cognitive Science, 1: 107–43.Google Scholar
Good, I. J. 1967. ‘On the Principle of Total Evidence.’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 17: 319–21.Google Scholar
Grim, P., Singer, D. J., Reade, C. and Fisher, S. 2011. ‘Information Dynamics Across Sub-Networks: Germs, Genes, and Memes.’ In AAAI Fall Symposium: Complex Adaptive Systems.Google Scholar
Heesen, R. Forthcoming. ‘Communism and the Incentive to Share in Science.’ Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. 2005. ‘Why Most Published Research Findings are False.’ PLoS Medicine, 2(8): e124.Google Scholar
Kadane, J. B., Schervish, M. and Seidenfeld, T. 2008. ‘Is Ignorance Bliss?’ Journal of Philosophy, 105(1): 5–36.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N. and Stone, A. A. 2006. ‘Would you be Happier if you were Richer? A Focusing Illusion.’ Science, 312(5782): 1908–10.Google Scholar
Kicinski, M. 2014. ‘How Does Under-Reporting of Negative and Inconclusive Results Affect the False-Positive Rate in Meta-Analysis? A Simulation Study.’ BMJ Open, 4(8): e004831.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1993. The Advancement of Science: Science Without Legend, Objectivity Without Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nickerson, R. S. 1998. ‘Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in many Guises.’ Review of General Psychology, 2: 175–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R. and Motyl, M. 2012. ‘Scientific Utopia II. Restructuring Incentives And Practices To Promote Truth Over Publishability.’ Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7: 615–31.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E. and Wegener, D. T. 1998. ‘Attitude Change: Multiple Roles for Persuasion Variables.’ In Gilbert, D., Fiske, S. and Lindzey, G. (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th edition, Vol. 1, pp. 323–90. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Pfungst, O. 1911. Clever Hans (The Horse of Mr. von Osten): A Contribution To Experimental Animal And Human Psychology. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R. 1979. ‘The File Drawer Problem and Tolerance for Null Results.’ Psychological Bulletin, 86: 638–41.Google Scholar
Simmons, J. P., LeBoeuf, R. A. and Nelson, L. D. 2010. ‘The Effect of Accuracy Motivation on Anchoring and Adjustment: Do People Adjust from Provided Anchors?’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99: 917–32.Google Scholar
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. and Simonsohn, U. 2011. ‘False-positive Psychology Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant.’ Psychological Science, 22: 1359–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L.D. and Simmons, J. P. 2014. ‘P-curve: A Key to the File-drawer.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143: 534–47.Google Scholar
Stephan, P. E. 1996. ‘The Economics of Science.’ Journal of Economic Literature, 34: 1199–235.Google Scholar
Strack, F., Martin, L. L. and Schwarz, N. 1988. ‘Priming and Communication: Social Determinants of Information Use in Judgments of Life Satisfaction.’ European Journal of Social Psychology, 18: 429–42.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. 1974. ‘Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.’ Science, 185(4157): 1124–31.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. and Arnold, J. 2005. ‘Intuitions in Linguistic Argumentation.’ Lingua, 115: 1481–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, T. D., Houston, C. E., Etling, K. M. and Brekke, N. 1996. ‘A New Look at Anchoring Effects: Basic Anchoring and its Antecedents.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125: 387–402.Google Scholar
Zollman, K. J. 2007. ‘The Communication Structure of Epistemic Communities.’ Philosophy of Science, 74: 574–87.Google Scholar
Zollman, K. J. 2010. ‘Social Structure and the Effects of Conformity.’ Synthese, 172: 317–40.Google Scholar