El argumento del regreso del experimentador y la replicación de experimentos
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-31662010000200005Keywords:
Experimenter's regress, Experiment, Experimental reproduction, Replication, Collins, WeberAbstract
The aim of this article is to analyze and criticize the argument of the experimenter's regress proposed by Harry Collins in 1985. To this end, we begin by discussing the experiment that aimed to detect gravity waves performed by Joseph Weber during the 1970s. We continue with analysis and discussion of both the epistemological and ontological versions of Collin's argument. Then, finally, after giving an outline of a theory of experimental reproduction and an explication of the concept of replication, we propose two ways of avoiding the experimenter's regress.Downloads
References
Ackermann, R. Data, instruments, and theory: a dialectical approach to understanding science. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985.
Barnes, J. The toils of skepticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Buchtwald, J. (Ed.). Scientific practice: theories and stories of doing physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Cartwright, N. Replicability, reproducibility and robustness: comments on Harry Collins. History of Political Economy, 21, p. 143-55, 1991.
Collins, H. The seven sexes: a study in the sociology of a phenomenon, or the replication of experiments in physics. Sociology, 9, p. 205-24, 1975.
Collins, H. Son of the seven sexes: the social destruction of a physical phenomenon. Social Studies of Science, 11, p. 33-62, 1981.
Collins, H. Changing order: replication and induction in scientific practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.
Collins, H._____. The meaning of replication and the science of economics. History of Political Economy, 21, p. 123- 42, 1991.
Collins, H._____. Changing order: replication and induction in scientific practice. 2. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Collins, H._____. A strong confirmation of the experimenters’ regress. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 25, 3, p. 493-503, 1994.
Collins, H._____. Tacit knowledge, trust and the Q of sapphire. Social Studies of Science, 31, p. 71-85, 2001.
Collins, H._____. The experimenters’ regress as philosophical sociology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 33, p. 153-60, 2002.
Collins, H._____. Gravity’s shadow: the search for gravitational waves. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 2004.
Culp, S. Objectivity in experimental enquiry: breaking data-techniques circles. Philosophy of Science, 62, p. 430-50, 1995.
Davies, P. En busca de las ondas de gravitación. Barcelona: Salvat, 1987 [1980].
Drake, S. Galileo’s exprimental confirmation of horizontal inertia: unpublished manuscripts. Isis, 64, p. 291-305, 1973.
Franklin, A. The epistemology of experiment. In: Gooding, D.; Pinch, T. & Schaffer, S. (Ed.). The uses of experiment: studies in the natural sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. p. 437-60.
_____. Avoiding the experimenters’ regress. In: Koertge, N. (Ed.). A house built on sand: exposing postmodernist myths about science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. p. 151-65.
_____. Can that be right? Essays on experiment, evidence, and science. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.
_____. Selectivity and discord: two problems of experiment. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2002.
_____. Are there really neutrinos? An evidential history. Cambridge: WestView Press, 2004.
Franklin, A. & Howson, C. Why do scientists prefer to vary their experiments? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 6, p. 141-84, 1984.
Garwin, R. & Levine, J. New negative results for gravitational wave detection, and comparison with reported detection. Physical Review Letters, 33, 13, p. 794-7, 1974.
Godin, B. & Gingras, Y. The experimenters’regress: from skepticism to argumentation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 33, p. 133-48, 2002.
Gooding, D.; Pinch, T. & Schaffer, S. (Ed.). The uses of experiment: studies in the natural sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Hacking, I. Representing and intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996 [1983].
_____. The self-vindication of laboratory sciences. In: Pickering, A. (Ed.). Science as practice and culture. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1992. p. 29-64.
Hill, D. Dissecting trayectories: Galileo’s early experiments on projectiles motion and the law of fall. Isis, 79, p. 646-68, 1986.
Hones, M. Reproducibility as a methodological imperative in experimental research. PSA, 1, p. 585-99, 1990.
Koertge, N. (Ed.). A house built on sand: exposing postmodernist myths about science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Knorr-Cetina, K. Relativism – what now. Social Studies of Science, 12, p. 133-6, 1982.
Kuhn, T. S. The essential tension. Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.
Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts. London/Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979.
Laudan, L. A note on Collins blend of relativism and empirism. Social Studies of Science, 12, p. 131-2, 1982.
Levine, J. Early gravity-wave detection experiments, 1960-1975. Physics in Perspective, 6, p. 42-75, 2004.
McKinney, W. When experiments fail: is “cold fusion” science as normal? In: Koertge, N. (Ed.). A house built on sand: exposing postmodernist myths about science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. p. 133-50.
Montaigne, M. Essais. Paris: Charpertier, 1862. t. 2.
Naylor, R. Galileo’s theory of projectile motion. Isis, 71, p. 550-70, 1980.
Pickering, A. (Ed.). Science as practice and culture. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Polanyi, M. The tacit dimension. New York: Anchor, 1967.
Popper, K. The logic of scientific discovery. London/New York: Routledge, 1959.
Putnam, H. Philosophy of logic. New York: Harper and Row, 1971.
Radder, H. Experimental reproducibility and the experimenters’ regress. PSA, 1, p. 63-73, 1992.
_____. Experimenting in the natural sciences: a philosophical approach. In: Buchtwald, J. (Ed.). Scientific practice: theories and stories of doing physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. p. 56-86.
_____. (Ed.). The philosophy of scientific experimentation. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2003.
Salmon, W. Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.
Usselman, M.; Reinhart, C. & Foulser, K. Restating Leibig: a study in the replication of experiments. Annals of Science, 62, p. 1-55, 2005.
Weber, J. Detection and generation of gravitational waves. Physical Review, 117, 1, p. 306-13, 1960.
_____. Gravitational radiation. Physical Review Letters, 18, 13, p. 498-501, 1967.
_____. Gravitational wave detector events. Physical Review Letters, 20, 23, p. 1307-8, 1968a.
_____. Gravitational radiation from the pulsars. Physical Review Letters, 21, 6, p. 395-6, 1968b.
_____. Evidence for discovery of gravitational radiation. Physical Review Letters, 22, 24, p. 1320-4, 1969.
_____. Anisotropy and polarization in the gravitational-radiation experiments. Physical Review Letters, 25, 3, p. 180-4, 1970.
_____. Computer analyses of gravitational radiation detector coincidences. Nature, 240, p. 28-30, 1972.
Wiggins, R. & Press, F. Search for seismic signals at pulsar frecuencies. Journal of Geophysical Research, 74, p. 22, 1969.
Will, C. Was Einstein right? Putting general relativity into test. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
_____. The confrontation between general relativity and experiment. Living Rev. Relativity, 9, 2006. Accesible en <3. URL (http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2006-3)>. Acceso en: 20 oct. 2009.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2010 Scientiae Studia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
A revista detém os direitos autorais de todos os textos nela publicados. Os autores estão autorizados a republicar seus textos mediante menção da publicação anterior na revista. A revista adota a Licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.
