Philosophy of Science: Science and Objectivity (PhSc)

Replication and Replication Crisis in Scientific Research

This year we will continue with our reading group’s overall topic of scientific objectivity, but more specifically we will be reading about replication of research results & the replicability crisis in medicine and social sciences. 

Co-convenors:  Carl Hoefer & Jose Díez

Meetings are bi-weekly, on Wednesdays, 11:00 - 13:00h
Location (Autumn): Seminari Hanna Arendt

Tentative schedule of readings:

1st week:

Franklin, A., Howson, C. (1984), “Why Do Scientists Prefer to Vary Their Experiments?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 15(2): 51-62.

Collins, H. (1984), “When Do Scientists Prefer to Vary Their Experiments?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 15(2): 169-174. 

2nd week:

Collins, H. (1992), Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [1985]. Chapter 4: “Detecting Gravitational Radiation: The Experimenters’ Regress”

3rd week

Cartwright, N. (1991), “Replicability, Reproducibility and Robustness: Comments on Harry Collins.” History of Political Economy 23(1): 143- 155.

4th week

Radder, H. (1996), Radder, Hans, 1996, In and About The World: Philosophical Studies Of Science And Technology, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Or

Radder, H. (1992), “Experimental Reproducibility and the Experimenters' Regress.” Philosophy of Science Association, Proceedings 1: 63-73.

5th week

Steinle, Friedrich, 2016, “Stability and Replication of Experimental Results: A Historical Perspective”, in Atmanspacher and Maasen (Eds.) Reproducibility, Principles, Problems, Practices and Prospects. Chapter 4, pp. 39-65.

6th week

Machery, E. (2020), “What Is Replication?”, Philosophy of Science, 87: 545-567.

7th week  (Replication Crisis)

Ioannidis, J. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”, PLOS Medicine 19(8): e1004085. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004085

Earp, Brian D. and David Trafimow, 2015, “Replication, Falsification, and the Crisis of Confidence in Social Psychology”, Frontiers in Psychology, 6(May): 621. 4

8th week

Loscalzo, J. (2012), “Experimental Irreproducibility: Causes, (Mis)interpretations, and Consequences”, Circulation, 125: 10, 1211-1214.   

Guttinger, S. (2019), “A New Account of Replication in the Experimental and Life Sciences”, Philosophy of Science, 86: 453-471.

9th week

Feest, U. (2019), “Why Replication Is Overrated”, Philosophy of Science, 86: 895-905.

10th week

Bird, A. (2018), “Understanding the Replicability Crisis as a Base Rate Fallacy”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72:4, 965-993.

11th week

Autzen, B. (2021), “Is the Replication Crisis a Base-Rate Fallacy?”, Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 42: 233-243.    

 

Possible further topic: Robustness and Multimodal Evidence

Wimsatt, W. (1981), “Robustness, Reliability and Overdetermination” in: Léna Soler et. al., Eds. (2012), Characterizing the Robustness in Science, pp. 61- 87, Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science.

Stegenga, J. (2012), “Rerum Concordia Discors: Robustness and Discordant Multimodal Evidence, in: Léna Soler (2012), (Ed.).

Menon, T., Stegenga, J. (2017), “Robustness and Independent Evidence”, Philosophy of Science, 84-3: 414-435.

Trizio, E. (2012), “Achieving Robustness to Confirm Controversial Hypotheses: A Case Study in Cell Biology”, in: Soler, L. et. al. (2012), (Eds.), Characterizing the Robustness of Science, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Dordretch, Heildelberg, London, New York: Springer.  pp. 105-120.

See all Reading Groups