The problem of 'seemingly impeccable trials' that produce unbelievable results is approached from basic notions of the philosophy of science: facts and theory are interdependent, and 'crucial experiments' do not exist. This does not lead to an 'anything goes' attitude, but obliges us to consider arguments and counter-arguments in the spirit of the 'crossword' analogy by Susan Haack. The role of editors and readers might be different: while editors might be under some obligation to publish 'seemingly impeccable trials', readers are not obliged to accept the findings.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.9.2228 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!