Evaluating competing theories via a common language of qualitative verdicts

Autor(en): Gaertner, Wulf
Wuthrich, Nicolas
Stichwörter: Epistemic values; History & Philosophy Of Science; Philosophy; Scoring rules; SOCIAL CHOICE; Social choice theory; THEORY CHOICE; Thomas S. Kuhn
Erscheinungsdatum: 2016
Herausgeber: SPRINGER
Journal: SYNTHESE
Volumen: 193
Ausgabe: 10
Startseite: 3293
Seitenende: 3309
Zusammenfassung: 
Kuhn (The essential tension-Selected studies in scientific tradition and change, 1977) claimed that several algorithms can be defended to select the best theory based on epistemic values such as simplicity, accuracy, and fruitfulness. In a recent paper, Okasha (Mind 129(477): 83-115, 2011) argued that no theory choice algorithm exists which satisfies a set of intuitively compelling conditions that Arrow (Social choice and individual values, 1963) had proposed for a consistent aggregation of individual preference orderings. In this paper, we put forward a solution to avoid this impossibility result. Based on previous work by Gaertner and Xu (Mathematical Social Sciences 63: 193-196, 2012), we suggest to view the theory choice problem in a cardinal context and to use a general scoring function defined over a set of qualitative verdicts for every epistemic value. This aggregation method yields a complete and transitive ranking and the rule satisfies all Arrovian conditions appropriately reformulated within a cardinal setting. We also propose methods that capture the aggregation across different scientists.
ISSN: 00397857
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-015-0929-4

Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric