Advertisement

Confirmational Holism and the Amalgamation of Evidence

  • Eleonora Cresto
  • Miranda del Corral
  • Diego Tajer
  • Juan Nascimbene
  • Alejandro Cassini
Conference paper
Part of the European Studies in Philosophy of Science book series (ESPS, volume 5)

Abstract

We discuss a potential application of Arrow’s impossibility theorem to the amalgamation of the evidence provided by different experimental sources. It has been suggested that, as long as there are three or more theories and at least two sources of evidence, Arrow’s negative result applies, and hence the aggregation of individual rankings is bound to coincide with the ranking delivered by one of the sources. Here we show that Arrow’s result need not obtain when dealing with the amalgamation of the evidence. To do so we discuss how different types of sources typically require different attitudes on the part of researchers regarding various auxiliary statements. Due to confirmational holism, the set of items to be ordered by level of confirmation is actually a set of structured elements. We argue that this simple fact will often impose restrictions on the domain of a reasonable amalgamation function, thus violating one of Arrow’s conditions. This phenomenon has interesting consequences at the time of considering the legitimacy of making meaningful comparisons among hypotheses that are rival in a radical way. We end by suggesting possible extensions of our framework to other contexts that require aggregating individual rankings, and in which Arrow’s theorem can be said to apply.

Keywords

Amalgamation of evidence Confirmational holism Arrow Rivalry in science 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We want to thank Jacob Stegenga, Michael Morreau, John Weymark and Stephan Hartmann for helpful comments on previous versions of this paper.

Bibliography

  1. Arrow, Kenneth. 1951. Social choice and individual values. New York: John.Google Scholar
  2. Avery, Oswald T., Colin MacLeod, and Maclyn McCarty. 1944. Studies on the chemical nature of the substance inducing transformation of pneumococcal types: Induction of transformation by a deoxyribonucleic acid fraction isolated from pneumococcus type III. Journal of Experimental Medicine 79: 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateson, William. 1902. A defense of Mendel’s principles of heredity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cresto, Eleonora, Miranda Del Corral, Diego Tajer, Juan Nascimbene and Alejandro Cassini. Confirmational holism and theory choice: Arrow meets Duhem. Under review.Google Scholar
  5. Dorling, John. 1979. Bayesian personalism, the methodology of scientific research programmes, and Duhem’s problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 10: 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duhem, Pierre. 1894. Quelques réflexions au sujet de la physique expérimentale. Revue des Questions Scientifiques 36: 179–229. [English translation by Roger Ariew and Peter Barker: Some reflections on the subject of experimental physics. In Duhem 1996 75–111].Google Scholar
  7. ———. 1906. La théorie physique: son object, sa structure. Paris: Chevalier et Rivière.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 1996. Essays in the history and philosophy of science. Edited and Trans. Roger Ariew and Peter Baker. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  9. Kuhn, Thomas. 1977a Objectivity, value judgment and theory choice. In Kuhn 1977b, 320–339.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 1977b. The essential tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Morreau, Michael. 2015. Theory choice and social choice: Kuhn vindicated. Mind 124: 239–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Okasha, Samir. 2011. Theory choice and social choice: Kuhn versus Arrow. Mind 477: 83–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sen, Amartya. 1970. Collective choice and social welfare. San Francisco: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 1977. On weights and measures: Informational constraints in social welfare analysis. Econometrica 45: 1539–1572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stegenga, Jacob. 2013. An impossibility theorem for amalgamating evidence. Synthese 190: 2391–2411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ———. 2015. Theory choice and social choice: Okasha versus Sen. Mind 124: 263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Strevens, Michael. 2001. The Bayesian treatment of auxiliary hypotheses. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52: 515–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Weldon, Walter Francis. 1902. Mendel’s laws of alternative inheritance in peas. Biometrika 1: 228–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eleonora Cresto
    • 1
  • Miranda del Corral
    • 2
  • Diego Tajer
    • 1
  • Juan Nascimbene
    • 3
  • Alejandro Cassini
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Buenos AiresCONICETBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.CONICETBuenos AiresArgentina
  3. 3.University Torcuato Di TellaBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations