The promises and pitfalls of precision: random and systematic error in physical geodesy, c. 1800-1910.

This article discusses the ways in which nineteenth-century geodesists reflected on precision as an epistemic virtue in their measurement practice. Physical geodesy is often understood as a quintessential nineteenth-century precision science, stimulating advances in instrument making and statistics, and generating incredible quantities of data. Throughout most of the nineteenth century, geodesists indeed pursued their most prestigious research problem - the exact determination of the earth's polar flattening - along those lines.

Pluralizing measurement: Physical geodesy's measurement problem and its resolution.

Derived measurements involve problems of coordination. Conducting them often requires detailed theoretical assumptions about their target, while such assumptions can lack sources of evidence that are independent from these very measurements. In this paper, I defend two claims about problems of coordination.

How incoherent measurement succeeds: Coordination and success in the measurement of the earth's polar flattening.

The development of nineteenth-century geodetic measurement challenges the dominant coherentist account of metric success. Coherentists argue that measurements of a parameter are successful if their numerical outcomes convergence across varying contextual constraints. Aiming at numerical convergence, in turn, offers an operational aim for scientists to solve problems of coordination.

The Limits of Conventional Justification: Inductive Risk and Industry Bias Beyond Conventionalism.

This article develops a constructive criticism of methodological conventionalism. Methodological conventionalism asserts that standards of inductive risk ought to be justified in virtue of their ability to facilitate coordination in a research community. On that view, industry bias occurs when conventional methodological standards are violated to foster industry preferences.