Abstract
This 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.
Highlights
What are scientific data? There are two main answers
I will call this third view a perspectival account, which is commited to two claims about data: (1) data identity changes much less frequently and than the relational account suggests because data are representational; and (2) data identity is not completely stable because data depend upon distinctions that scientists make
It is difficult to make sense of how they could have their respective research interests and pursue them, unless they were working with the same data. This case suggests that the data, the records that began in a notebook, provided a link between two scientifically-minded researchers and a set of oil drops. This conclusion gets us out of the problem of stability: data are stable enough to support a variety of research interests and this stability stems from the fact that they are records, not just evidence
Summary
What are scientific data? There are two main answers. One influential answer, first defended by Bogen and Woodward (1988), is that data are representational. Data provide empirical evidence and, as such, are free from theoretical assumptions and determined, in crucial ways, by nature They are stable, meaning their identity does not change even if theoretical or experimental practices change. I will call this third view a perspectival account, which is commited to two claims about data: (1) data identity changes much less frequently and than the relational account suggests because data are representational; and (2) data identity is not completely stable because data depend upon distinctions that scientists make. This dependence can be helpfully understood by appeal to perspectivism.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
