Some lessons from simulations of scientific disagreements

Dunja Seselja (Corresponding author)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper examines lessons obtained by means of simulations in the form of agent-based models (ABMs) about the norms that are to guide disagreeing scientists. I focus on two types of epistemic and methodological norms: (i) norms that guide one’s attitude towards one’s own theory, and (ii) norms that guide one’s attitude towards the opponent’s theory. Concerning (i) I look into ABMs that have been designed to examine the context of peer disagreement. Here I challenge the conclusion that the given ABMs provide a support for the so-called Steadfast Norm, according to which one is epistemically justified in remaining steadfast in their beliefs in face of disagreeing peers. I argue that the proposed models at best provide evidence for a weaker norm, which concerns methodological steadfastness. Concerning (ii) I look into ABMs aimed at examining epistemic effects of scientific interaction. Here I argue that the models provide diverging suggestions and that the link between each ABM and the type of represented inquiry is still missing. Moreover, I examine alternative strategies of arguing in favor of the benefits of scientific interaction, relevant for contemporary discussions on scientific pluralism.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages16
JournalSynthese
VolumeXX
Issue numberXX
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 30 Mar 2019

Keywords

  • Agent-based models
  • Epistemic toleration
  • Rational endorsement
  • Scientific disagreement
  • Scientific interaction
  • Scientific pluralism

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Some lessons from simulations of scientific disagreements'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this