When “replicability” is more than just “reliability”: The Hubble constant controversy

IF 1.4 2区哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2024-08-05 DOI:10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.07.005

Vera Matarese , C.D. McCoy

{"title":"When “replicability” is more than just “reliability”: The Hubble constant controversy","authors":"Vera Matarese , C.D. McCoy","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.07.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We propose that the epistemic functions of replication in science are best understood by relating them to kinds of experimental error/uncertainty. One kind of replication, which we call “direct replications,” principally serves to assess the reliability of an experiment through its precision: the presence and degree of random error/statistical uncertainty. The other kind of replication, which we call “conceptual replications,” principally serves to assess the validity of an experiment through its accuracy: the presence and degree of systematic errors/uncertainties. To illustrate the aptness of this general view, we examine the Hubble constant controversy in astronomy, showing how astronomers have responded to the concordances and discordances in their results by carrying out the different kinds of replication that we identify, with the aim of establishing a precise, accurate value for the Hubble constant. We contrast our view with Machery's “re-sampling” account of replication, which maintains that replications only assess reliability.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49467,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"107 ","pages":"Pages 1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368124001122","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

We propose that the epistemic functions of replication in science are best understood by relating them to kinds of experimental error/uncertainty. One kind of replication, which we call “direct replications,” principally serves to assess the reliability of an experiment through its precision: the presence and degree of random error/statistical uncertainty. The other kind of replication, which we call “conceptual replications,” principally serves to assess the validity of an experiment through its accuracy: the presence and degree of systematic errors/uncertainties. To illustrate the aptness of this general view, we examine the Hubble constant controversy in astronomy, showing how astronomers have responded to the concordances and discordances in their results by carrying out the different kinds of replication that we identify, with the aim of establishing a precise, accurate value for the Hubble constant. We contrast our view with Machery's “re-sampling” account of replication, which maintains that replications only assess reliability.

查看原文本刊更多论文

当 "可复制性 "不仅仅是 "可靠性 "时：哈勃常数之争

我们认为，科学中复制的认识论功能最好与实验误差/不确定性联系起来加以理解。一种复制，我们称之为 "直接复制"，主要是通过实验的精确性来评估实验的可靠性：随机误差/统计不确定性的存在和程度。另一种复制，我们称之为 "概念复制"，主要是通过实验的准确性来评估实验的有效性：系统误差/不确定性的存在及其程度。为了说明这一一般观点的恰当性，我们研究了天文学中的哈勃常数之争，展示了天文学家如何通过进行我们所确定的不同类型的复制来应对其结果中的一致与不一致，从而为哈勃常数确定一个精确的准确值。我们将我们的观点与马切利关于复制的 "再取样 "观点进行对比，后者认为复制只是评估可靠性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学

CiteScore

2.50

自引率

10.00%

发文量

166

审稿时长

6.6 weeks

期刊介绍： Studies in History and Philosophy of Science is devoted to the integrated study of the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences. The editors encourage contributions both in the long-established areas of the history of the sciences and the philosophy of the sciences and in the topical areas of historiography of the sciences, the sciences in relation to gender, culture and society and the sciences in relation to arts. The Journal is international in scope and content and publishes papers from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions.