Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:44:30.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Error as Means to Discovery*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Kevin Elliott
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues, first, that recent studies of experimentation, most notably by Deborah Mayo, provide the conceptual resources to describe scientific discovery's early stages as error-probing processes. Second, it shows that this description yields greater understanding of those early stages, including the challenges that they pose, the research strategies associated with them, and their influence on the rest of the discovery process. Throughout, the paper examines the phenomenon of “chemical hormesis” (i.e., anomalous low-dose effects from toxic chemicals) as a case study that is important not only for the biological sciences but also for contemporary public policy. The resulting analysis is significant for at least two reasons. First, by elucidating the importance of discovery's earliest stages, it expands previous accounts by philosophers such as William Wimsatt and Lindley Darden. Second, it identifies the discovery process as yet another philosophical topic on which the detailed studies of the “new experimentalists” can shed new light.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , April 2004 , pp. 174 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

‡

I would like to thank Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Kelly Smith, Douglas Allchin, and two anonymous referees for helpful discussions and comments that strengthened this paper. I also thank Douglas Allchin and Lindley Darden for encouraging me to develop the paper.

References

Ackermann, Robert (1985), Data, Instruments, and Theory: A Dialectical Approach to Understanding Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allchin, Douglas (2001), “Error Types”, Error Types 9:38–58.Google Scholar
Ashford, Nicholas, and Miller, Claudia (1998), Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes, 2d ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bechtel, William, and Richardson, Robert (1993), Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Strategies in Scientific Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, Linda (1994), “Endocrine Effects of Prenatal Exposure to PCBs, Dioxins, and Other Xenobiotics: Implications for Policy and Future Research”, Endocrine Effects of Prenatal Exposure to PCBs, Dioxins, and Other Xenobiotics: Implications for Policy and Future Research 102:676–679.Google ScholarPubMed
Calabrese, Edward (1999), “Evidence that Hormesis Represents an ‘Overcompensation’ Response to a Disruption in Homeostasis”, Evidence that Hormesis Represents an ‘Overcompensation’ Response to a Disruption in Homeostasis 42:135–137.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Edward (2001), “Overcompensation Stimulation: A Mechanism for Hormetic Effects”, Overcompensation Stimulation: A Mechanism for Hormetic Effects 31:425–470.Google ScholarPubMed
Calabrese, Edward and Baldwin, Linda (1997), “The Dose Determines the Stimulation (and Poison): Development of a Chemical Hormesis Database”, The Dose Determines the Stimulation (and Poison): Development of a Chemical Hormesis Database 16:545–559.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Edward and Baldwin, Linda (1998), Chemical Hormesis: Scientific Foundations. College Station, TX: Institute for the Advancement of Chemical Technology.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Edward and Baldwin, Linda (1999), “Reevaluation of the Fundamental Dose-Response Relationship”, Reevaluation of the Fundamental Dose-Response Relationship 49:725–732.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Edward and Baldwin, Linda (2000a), “The Marginalization of Hormesis”, The Marginalization of Hormesis 19:32–40.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Edward and Baldwin, Linda (2000b), “Tales of Two Similar Hypotheses: The Rise and Fall of Chemical and Radiation Hormesis”, Tales of Two Similar Hypotheses: The Rise and Fall of Chemical and Radiation Hormesis 19:85–97.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Edward and Baldwin, Linda (2001), “The Frequency of U-Shaped Dose Responses in the Toxicological Literature”, The Frequency of U-Shaped Dose Responses in the Toxicological Literature 62:330–338.Google ScholarPubMed
Calabrese, Edward and Baldwin, Linda (2002), “Defining Hormesis”, Defining Hormesis 21:91–97.Google ScholarPubMed
Calabrese, Edward and Baldwin, Linda (2003), “Toxicology Rethinks Its Central Belief”, Toxicology Rethinks Its Central Belief 421:691–692.Google ScholarPubMed
Carrier, Martin (2001), “Critical Notice: Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge”, Critical Notice: Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge 15:93–98.Google Scholar
Colborn, Theo, Dumanoski, Diane, and Myers, J. P. (1996), Our Stolen Future. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Collins, Harry M., and Pinch, Trevor (1993), The Golem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crump, Kenny S. (2001), “Evaluating the Evidence for Hormesis: A Statistical Perspective”, Evaluating the Evidence for Hormesis: A Statistical Perspective 31:669–679.Google ScholarPubMed
Darden, Lindley (1991), Theory Change in Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Darden, Lindley (1992), “Strategies for Anomaly Resolution”, in Giere, Ronald (ed.), Cognitive Models of Science, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 15. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 251–273.Google Scholar
Davis, J. Michael, and Farland, William (1998), “Biological Effects of Low-Level Exposures: A Perspective from U.S. EPA Scientists”, Biological Effects of Low-Level Exposures: A Perspective from U.S. EPA Scientists 106:380.Google ScholarPubMed
Davis, J. Michael, and Svendsgaard, David (1990), “U-Shaped Dose-Response Curves: Their Occurrence and Implications for Risk Assessment”, U-Shaped Dose-Response Curves: Their Occurrence and Implications for Risk Assessment 30:71–83.Google ScholarPubMed
Elliott, Kevin (2000a), “A Case for Caution: An Evaluation of Calabrese and Baldwin's Studies of Chemical Hormesis”, A Case for Caution: An Evaluation of Calabrese and Baldwin's Studies of Chemical Hormesis 11:177–196.Google Scholar
Elliott, Kevin (2000b), “Conceptual Clarification and Policy-Related Science: The Case of Chemical Hormesis”, Conceptual Clarification and Policy-Related Science: The Case of Chemical Hormesis 8:346–366.Google Scholar
Franklin, Allan (1986), The Neglect of Experiment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Allan (1997), “Calibration”, Calibration 5:31–80.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter (1987), How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, Linda M., Williams, George C., and Gray, Sandra J. (1999), “The Nutrient-Toxin Dosage Continuum in Human Evolution and Modern Health”, The Nutrient-Toxin Dosage Continuum in Human Evolution and Modern Health 74:273–289.Google ScholarPubMed
Hacking, Ian (1983), Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian (1988), “On the Stability of the Laboratory Sciences”, On the Stability of the Laboratory Sciences 85:507–514.Google Scholar
Hanson, Norwood Russell (1958), Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, Norwood Russell (1961), “Is There a Logic of Scientific Discovery?” in Feigl, Herbert and Maxwell, Grover (eds.), Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 21–42.Google Scholar
Hon, Giora (1989), “Towards a Typology of Experimental Errors: An Epistemological View”, Towards a Typology of Experimental Errors: An Epistemological View 20:469–504.Google Scholar
Krimsky, Sheldon (2000), Hormonal Chaos: The Scientific and Social Origins of the Environmental Endocrine Hypothesis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre (1970), “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”, in Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry (1977), Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry (1997), “How About Bust? Factoring Explanatory Power Back into Theory Evaluation”, How About Bust? Factoring Explanatory Power Back into Theory Evaluation 64:306–316.Google Scholar
Mayo, Deborah (1996), Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzie, C. (2001), “Hormesis in Ecological Risk Assessment: A Useful Concept, a Confusing Term, and/or a Distraction?”, Hormesis in Ecological Risk Assessment: A Useful Concept, a Confusing Term, and/or a Distraction? 20:521–523.Google ScholarPubMed
National Research Council (1994), Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council (2000), Hormonally Active Agents in the Environment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Nickles, Thomas (1996), “Deflationary Methodology and Rationality of Science”, Deflationary Methodology and Rationality of Science 58:9–50.Google Scholar
Nickles, Thomas (1997), “A Multi-Pass Conception of Scientific Inquiry”, A Multi-Pass Conception of Scientific Inquiry 32:11–44.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Schaffner, Kenneth (1993), Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shapere, Dudley (1977), “Scientific Theories and Their Domains”, in Suppe, Frederick (ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories, 2d ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Star, Susan Leigh, and Gerson, Elihu M. (1986), “The Management and Dynamics of Anomalies in Scientific Work”, The Management and Dynamics of Anomalies in Scientific Work 28:147–169.Google Scholar
Stebbing, A. R. D. (1982), “Hormesis—The Stimulation of Growth by Low Levels of Inhibitors”, Hormesis—The Stimulation of Growth by Low Levels of Inhibitors 22:213Google ScholarPubMed
Stebbing, A. R. D. (1998), “A Theory for Growth Hormesis”, A Theory for Growth Hormesis 403:249–258.Google ScholarPubMed
Vichi, P., and Tritton, T. (1989), “Stimulation of Growth in Human and Murine Cells by Adriamycin”, Stimulation of Growth in Human and Murine Cells by Adriamycin 49:2679–2682.Google ScholarPubMed
Wimsatt, William (1987), “False Models as Means to Truer Theories”, in Nitecki, Matthew and Hoffman, Antoni (eds.), Neutral Models in Biology. New York: Oxford University Press, 23–55.Google Scholar