From Stability to Validity: How Standards Serve Epistemic Ends

  • Lara Huber
Part of the European Studies in Philosophy of Science book series (ESPS, volume 9)


The paper explores standardisation from the perspective of epistemology. Its aim is to enquire into the reality of standards as being very specific tools with defined uses, but at the same time sharing general suppositions about which ends they serve within the realm of science. The paper focuses on the questions how standards relate to ends that facilitate and/or allow for knowledge claims in the sciences. Therefore, scientific practices in different fields of research are assessed, ranging from measurement to experimental trial design in medicine and psychology.


Experiment Robustness Homogeneity Validity Standardisation Epistemology 



This paper is based on a larger systematic research project on scientific norms (i.e., standards), which is unpublished to date. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Second International Conference of the German Society for Philosophy of Science (GWP) at the University of Düsseldorf, Germany, in 2016. I would like to thank the audience and an anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments.


  1. Bechtel, W. 1994. Deciding on the data: Epistemological problems surrounding instruments and research techniques in cell biology. Philosophy of Science (Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers) 2: 167–178.Google Scholar
  2. Boring, E.G. 1954. The nature and history of experimental control. The American Journal of Psychology 67 (4): 573–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bunge, M. 1967. Scientific research. Vol. 2. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, D.T., and J.C. Stanley. 1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  5. Chang, H. 2004. Inventing temperature: Measurement and scientific progress. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clause, B.T. 1993. The Wistar rat as a right choice: Establishing mammalian standards and the ideal of a standardized mammal. Journal of the History of Biology 26: 329–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dewey, J. 1981. The later works, 1925–1953. Vol. 1: 1925, ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Douglas, H. 2013. The value of cognitive values. Philosophy of Science 80: 796–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feest, I. 2011. What exactly is stabilized when phenomena are stabilized? Synthese 182: 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Franklin, A. 2013. Shifting standards. Experiments in particle physics in the twentieth century. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gandenberger, G.S. 2010. Producing a robust body of data with a single technique. Philosophy of Science 77: 381–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gossel, P.P. 1992. A need for standard methods: The case of American bacteriology. In The right tools for the job. At work in twentieth-century life sciences, ed. A. Clarke and J.H. Fujimura, 287–311. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gradmann, C. 2014. A spirit of scientific rigour: Koch’s postulates in twentieth-century medicine. Microbes and Infection 16: 885–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guala, F. 2003. Experimental localism and external validity. Philosophy of Science 70: 1195–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hacking, I. 1983. Representing and intervening. Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ———. 1990. The taming of chance. Cambridge/New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 1999. The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Huber, L. 2015. Measuring by which standard? How plurality challenges the ideal of epistemic singularity. In Schlaudt & Huber, 207–215.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2016. Gentlemen in, genuine knowledge out? Zum Status wissenschaftlicher Normen für die Erkenntnissicherung. Analyse & Kritik 38: 391–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huber, L., and L. Keuck. 2013. Mutant mice: Experimental organisms as materialised models in biomedicine. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44: 385–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirk, R.G.W. 2012. Standardization through mechanization: Germ-free life and the engineering in the ideal laboratory animal. Technology and Culture 53: 61–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laudan, L. 1984. Science and values. The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. Levine, R.J. 2008. The nature, scope, and justification of clinical research. What is research? Who is a subject? In Oxford textbook of clinical ethics, ed. E.J. Emanuel et al., 211–221. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Löwy, I., and J.-P. Gaudillière. 1998. Disciplining cancer: Mice and the practice of genetic purity. In The invisible industrialist. Manufactures and the production of scientific knowledge, ed. J.-P. Gaudillière and I. Löwy, 209–249. Ipswich: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  25. Logan, C.A. 2002. Before there were standards: The role of test animals in the production of empirical generality in physiology. Journal of the History of Biology 35: 329–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mackenzie, A. 2012. Technical objects in the biological century. Zeitschrift für Medien- und Kulturforschung 1: 151–168.Google Scholar
  27. Mohr, D.C., B. Spring, K.E. Freedland, V. Beckner, P. Arean, S.D. Hollon, J. Ockene, and R. Kaplan. 2009. The selection and design of control conditions for randomized controlled trials of psychological intervention. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 78: 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Müller-Wille, S. 2007. Hybrids, pure cultures, and pure lines: from nineteenth-century biology to twentieth-century genetics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences 38: 796–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nestor, P., and R.K. Schutt. 2012. Research methods in psychology. Investigating human behavior. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
  30. Parker, W. 2009. Does matter really matter? Computer simulations, experiments, and materiality. Synthese 169: 483–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peirce, C.S. 1982–1999. Writings of Charles S. Peirce. A chronological edition. In N. Houser et al. 6 Vol. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Radder, H., ed. 2003. The philosophy of scientific experimentation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  33. Raz, J. 1990. Practical reason and norms. 2nd ed. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Schaffer, S. 1992. Late Victorian metrology and its instrumentation: A manufactory of ohms. In Invisible connections. Instruments, institutions, and science, ed. R. Bud and S.E. Cozzens, 23–56. Bellingham/Washington, DC: SPIE Optical Engineering Press.Google Scholar
  35. Schlaudt, O., and L. Huber, eds. 2015. Standardization in measurement. Philosophical, historical and sociological issues. London: Pickering & Chatto.Google Scholar
  36. Searle, J. 1995. The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  37. Stegenga, J. 2009. Robustness, discordance, and relevance. Philosophy of Science 76: 650–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tal, E. 2011. How accurate is the Standard Second? Philosophy of Science 78: 1082–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Timmermans, S., and M. Berg. 2003. The Gold Standard. The challenge of evidence-based medicine and standardization in health care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Ullmann-Margalit, E. 1977. The emergence of norms. Oxford/London/Glasgow: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kiel UniversityKielGermany

Personalised recommendations