Abstract
AbstractThis paper uses several case studies to suggest that (1) two prominent definitions of data do not on their own capture how scientists use data and (2) a novel perspectival account of data is needed. It then outlines some key features of what this account could look like. Those prominent views, the relational and representational, do not fully capture what data are and how they function in science. The representational view is insensitive to the scientific context in which data are used. The relational account does not fully account for the empirical nature of data and how it is possible for data to be evidentially useful. The perspectival account surmounts these problems by accommodating a representational element to data. At the same time, data depend upon the epistemic context because they are the product of situated and informed judgements.
Funder
H2020 European Research Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Philosophy
Reference25 articles.
1. Bogen, J., & Woodward, J. (1988). Saving the phenomena. The Philosophical Review, 97(3), 303–352.
2. Bogen, J., & Woodword, J. (2003). Evading the IRS. Poznań Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, 20, 223–256.
3. Brewer, W. F., & Lambert, B. L. (2001). The theory-ladenness of observation and the theory-ladenness of the rest of the scientific process. Philosophy of Science, 68(S3), S176–S186.
4. Clark, D. H., & Richard Stephenson, F. (1977). The historical supernovae (p. 233). Oxford: Pergamon International Library of Science, Technology, Engineering and Social Studies. £8.50. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 41(3), 627–628.
5. Franklin, A. D. (1981). Millikan’s published and unpublished data on oil drops. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 11(2), 185–201.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. What are Data and Who Benefits?;Postdigital Science and Education;2024