Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:39:44.630Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Producing a Robust Body of Data with a Single Technique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Gregory Stephen Gandenberger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When a technique purports to provide information that is not available to the unaided senses, it is natural to think that the only way to validate that technique is by appealing to a theory of the processes that lead from the object of study to the raw data. In fact, scientists have a variety of strategies for validating their techniques. Those strategies can yield multiple independent arguments that support the validity of the technique. Thus, it is possible to produce a robust body of data with a single technique. I illustrate and support these claims with a historical case study.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 77 , Issue 3 , July 2010 , pp. 381 - 399
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.)

References

Bechtel, William. 1990. “Scientific Evidence: Creating and Evaluating Experimental Instruments and Research Techniques.” In PSA 1990: Proceedings of the 1990 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1, ed. Fine, Arthur, Forbes, Micky, and Wessels, Linda, 559–72. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Chalmers, Alan. 2003. “Theory-Dependence of the Use of Instruments in Science.” Philosophy of Science 70:493–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culp, Sylvia. 1994. “Defending Robustness: The Bacterial Mesosome as a Test Case.” In PSA 1994: Proceedings of the 1994 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1, ed. Hull, David, Forbes, Micky, and Burian, Richard M., 46–57. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Culp, Sylvia. 1995. “Objectivity in Experimental Inquiry: Breaking Data-Technique Circles.” Philosophy of Science 62:438–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlanger, Joseph, and Gasser, Herbert S. 1937. Electrical Signs of Nervous Activity. Eldridge Reeves Johnson Foundation Lectures. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Erlanger, Joseph, and Gasser, Herbert S. with Bishop, George H. 1922. “The Compound Nature of the Action Current of Nerve as Disclosed by the Cathode Ray Oscillograph.” American Journal of Physiology 62:496–524.Google Scholar
Franklin, Allan. 2009. “Experiment in Physics.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/physics-experiment/.Google Scholar
Gasser, Herbert S., and Erlanger, Joseph. 1924. “A Study of the Action Currents of Nerve with the Cathode Ray Oscillograph.” American Journal of Physiology 70:624–66.Google Scholar
Gasser, Herbert S., and Erlanger, Joseph. 1927. “The Role Played by the Sizes of the Constituent Fibers of the Nerve Trunk in Determining the Form of Its Action Potential Wave.” American Journal of Physiology 80:522–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasser, Herbert S., and Erlanger, Joseph. 1929. “The Role of Fiber Size in the Establishment of a Nerve Block by Pressure of Cocaine.” American Journal of Physiology 88:581–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of the Natural Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, Richard J., and Marx, Morris L. 2006. An Introduction to Mathematical Statistics and Its Applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
Lucas, Keith. 1912. “On a Mechanical Method of Correcting Photographic Records Obtained from the Capillary Electrometer.” Journal of Physiology 44:225–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steel, Daniel. 2008. Across the Boundaries: Extrapolation in Biology and Social Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. 1981. “Robustness, Reliability, and Overdetermination.” In Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences, ed. Brewer, M. and Collins, B., 124–63. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

A correction has been issued for this article:

Erratum