Theory-choice, transient diversity and the efficiency of scientific inquiry
Recent studies of scientific interaction based on agent-based models (ABMs) suggest that a crucial factor conducive to efficient inquiry is what Zollman (2010) has dubbed ‘transient diversity’. It signifies a process in which a community engages in parallel exploration of rivaling theories lasting sufficiently long for the community to identify the best theory and to converge on it. But what exactly generates transient diversity? And is transient diversity a decisive factor when it comes to the efficiency of inquiry? In this paper we examine the impact of different conditions on the efficiency of inquiry, as well as the relation between diversity and efficiency. This includes certain diversity-generating mechanisms previously proposed in the literature (such as different social networks and cautious decision-making), as well as some factors that have so far been neglected (such as evaluations underlying theory-choice performed by scientists). This study is obtained via an argumentation-based ABM (Borg et al. 2017, 2018). Our results suggest that cautious decision-making does not always have a significant impact on the efficiency of inquiry while different evaluations underlying theory-choice and different social networks do. Moreover, we find a correlation between diversity and a successful performance of agents only under specific conditions, which indicates that transient diversity is sometimes not the primary factor responsible for efficiency. Altogether, when comparing our results to those obtained by structurally different ABMs based on Zollman’s work, the impact of specific factors on efficiency of inquiry, as well as the role of transient diversity in achieving efficiency, appear to be highly dependent on the underlying model.
KeywordsAgent-based modeling Cautious decision-making Theory-choice Transient diversity Scientific inquiry Scientific interaction
We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on the previous draft of this paper.
The research by AnneMarie Borg and Christian Straßer is supported by a Sofja Kovalevskaja award of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and by the German Ministry for Education and Research.
The research of Dunja Šešelja is supported by the DFG (Research Grant HA 3000/9-1).
- Borg, A.M., Frey, D., Šešelja, D., Straßer, C. (2017). Examining network effects in an argumentative agent-based model of scientific inquiry. In Baltag, A., Seligman, J., Yamada, T. (Eds.) Proceedings Logic, rationality, and interaction: 6th international workshop, LORI 2017, Sapporo, Japan, September 11-14, 2017 (pp. 391–406). Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
- Borg, A.M., Frey, D., Šešelja, D., Straßer, C. (2018). Epistemic effects of scientific interaction: approaching the question with an argumentative agent-based model. Historical Social Research, 43(1), 285–309.Google Scholar
- Borg, A.M., Frey, D., Šešelja, D., Straßer, C. (2019). Using agent-based models to explain past scientific episodes: towards robust fndings. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
- Currie, A., & Avin, S. (2018). Method pluralism, method mismatch and method bias. Philosopher’s Imprint.Google Scholar
- Frey, D., & Šešelja, D. (2018a). Robustness and idealization in agent-based models of scientific interaction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axy039.
- Frey, D., & Šešelja, D. (2018b). What is the epistemic function of highly idealized agent-based models of scientific inquiry? Philosophy of the Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393118767085.
- Grim, P. (2009). Threshold phenomena in epistemic networks. In AAAI fall symposium: complex adaptive systems and the threshold effect (pp. 53–60).Google Scholar
- Kelp, C., & Douven, I. (2012). Sustaining a rational disagreement. EPSA philosophy of science: Amsterdam 2009 101–110.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T. (1962). Structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: towards a theory of scientific growth. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
- Muldoon, R. (2017). Diversity, rationality and the division of cognitive labor. In Scientific collaboration and collective knowledge: New Essays. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Nickles, T. (2006). Heuristic appraisal: context of discovery or justification? In Revisiting discovery and justification: Historical and philosophical perspectives on the context distinction (pp. 159–182).Google Scholar
- Pöyhönen, S., & Kuorikoski, J. (2016). Modeling epistemic communities. In Fricker, M., Graham, P.J., Henderson, D., Pedersen, N., Wyatt, J. (Eds.) The routledge handbook of social epistemology (forthcoming). Routledge.Google Scholar
- Šešelja, D. (2019). Some lessons from simulations of scientific disagreements, synthese (accepted for publication).Google Scholar
- Šešelja, D., & Straßer, C. (2014a). Epistemic justification in the context of pursuit: a coherentist approach. Synthese, 191(13), 3111–3141.Google Scholar
- Šešelja, D., & Straßer, C. (2014b). Heuristic reevaluation of the bacterial hypothesis of peptic ulcer disease in the 1950s. Acta Biotheoretica, 62, 429–454.Google Scholar
- Wilensky, U. (1999). Netlogo. (http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/). In Center for connected learning and computer based modeling. Northwestern University.