Synthese

, Volume 194, Issue 2, pp 313–332 | Cite as

Experimenter’s regress argument, empiricism, and the calibration of the large hadron collider

Article

Abstract

H. Collins has challenged the empiricist understanding of experimentation by identifying what he thinks constitutes the experimenter’s regress: an instrument is deemed good because it produces good results, and vice versa. The calibration of an instrument cannot alone validate the results: the regressive circling is broken by an agreement essentially external to experimental procedures. In response, A. Franklin has argued that calibration is a key reasonable strategy physicists use to validate production of results independently of their interpretation. The physicists’ arguments about the merits of calibration are not coextensive with the interpretation of results, and thus an objective validation of results is possible. I argue, however, that the in-situ calibrating and measurement procedures and parameters at the Large Hadron Collider are closely and systematically interrelated. This requires empiricists to question their insistence on the independence of calibration from the outcomes of the experiment and rethink their position. Yet this does not leave the case of in-situ calibration open to the experimenter’s regress argument; it is predicated on too crude a view of the relationship between calibration and measurement that fails to capture crucial subtleties of the case.

Keywords

High energy physics Higgs boson Experiments  Experimenter’s regress Calibration 

References

  1. Acharya, B.S., Cavallari, F., Corcella, G., Di Sipio, R., & Petrucciani, G. (2008). Commissioning ATLAS and CMS with top quarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:0805.3816.
  2. ATLAS Collaboration. (2012). Measurement of the t-channel single top-quark production cross section in pp collisions at with the ATLAS detector. Physics Letters B 717(4), 330–350.Google Scholar
  3. Borjanovic, E., et al. (2005). Investigation of top mass measurements with the ATLAS detector at LHC. The European Physical Journal C, 39(s2), s63–s90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blyweert, S. (2012). Top quark mass measurements at the LHC. arXiv preprint arXiv:1205.2175.
  5. Cacciari, M., et al. (2008). Updated predictions for the total production cross sections of top and of heavier quark pairs at the Tevatron and at the LHC. In JHEP 09, p. 127.Google Scholar
  6. CMS Collaboration. (2008). Measurement of jet energy scale corrections using top quark events. In CMS PAS TOP-07-004.Google Scholar
  7. CMS Collaboration. (2012). Measurement of the top-quark mass in t\(\bar{\text{ t }}\) events with dilepton final states in pp collisions at \({\surd }s =7\) TeV. The European Physical Journal C, 72, 2202.Google Scholar
  8. CMS Collaboration. (2013). Determination of the top-quark pole mass and strong coupling constant from the tt production cross section in pp collisions at \({\surd }\text{ s } = 7\) TeV. arXiv:1307.1907v1. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.1907v1.pdf.
  9. Collins, H. M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, H. M. (1994). A strong confirmation of the experimenters’ regress. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 25(3), 493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins, H. M. (2002). The experimenter’s regress as philosophical sociology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 33(1), 149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cousins, R. D. (2013). The Jeffreys–Lindley paradox and discovery criteria in high energy physics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1310.3791.
  13. Franklin, Allan. (1990). Experiment, right or wrong. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franklin, Allan. (1994). How to avoid the experimenters’ regress. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 25, 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Franklin, A. (1997). Calibration. Perspectives on Science, 5(1), 31–50.Google Scholar
  16. Franklin, A. (2013). Shifting standards: Experiments in particle physics in the twentieth century. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  17. Franklin, A., & Howson, C. (1984). Why do scientists prefer to vary their experiments? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 15(1), 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gutierrez, G. (2007). Top quark mass: Past, present and future. AIP Conference Proceedings, 928, 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jovicevic, J. (2013). Probing the standard model higgs boson in the WW decay mode with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Licentiate Thesis in physics. University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
  20. Karaca, K. (2013). The strong and weak senses of theory-ladenness of experimentation: Theory-driven versus exploratory experiments in the history of high-energy particle physics. Science in Context, 26(01), 93–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morrison, M. (2014). Bridging the great divide: Simulation, experiments, and validation experiments. In Presented at the philosophy of scientific experimentation 4, Center for Philosophy of Science, Pittsburgh, 2014.Google Scholar
  22. Schouten, D. W. (2007). Jet energy calibration in atlas (Doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University). http://hep.phys.sfu.ca/theses/DougSchouten_msc.pdf.
  23. Van Mulders, P. (2010). Calibration of the jet energy scale using top quark events at the LHC, doctoral thesis. Brussels: Vrije University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  2. 2.Department of History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations