Abstract
AbstractShould a scientist rely on methodological triangulation? Heesen et al. (Synthese 196(8):3067–3081, 2019) recently provided a convincing affirmative answer. However, their approach requires belief gambles if the evidence is discordant. We instead propose epistemically modest triangulation (EMT), according to which one should withhold judgement in such cases. We show that for a scientist in a methodologically diffident situation the expected utility of EMT is greater than that of Heesen et al.’s (2019) triangulation or that of using a single method. We also show that EMT is more appropriate for increasing epistemic trust in science. In short: triangulate, but do not gamble with evidence.
Funder
Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference33 articles.
1. Aaberge, R., & Brandolini, A. (2015). Multidimensional poverty and inequality. In Handbook of income distribution (Vol. 2, pp. 141–216). Elsevier.
2. Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 543–554.
3. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken: Wiley.
4. Bovens, L., & Hartmann, S. (2003). Bayesian epistemology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
5. Boyer-Kassem, T. (2019). Scientific expertise and risk aggregation. Philosophy of Science, 86(1), 124–144.