The Limits of Conventional Justification: Inductive Risk and Industry Bias Beyond Conventionalism
Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics
Frontiers Media S.A.
MetadataShow full item record
Ohnesorge, M. (2020). The Limits of Conventional Justification: Inductive Risk and Industry Bias Beyond Conventionalism. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 5 https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020.599506
This article develops a constructive criticism of methodological conventionalism. Methodological conventionalism asserts that standards of inductive risk ought to be justified in virtue of their ability to facilitate coordination in a research community. On that view, industry bias occurs when conventional methodological standards are violated to foster industry preferences. The underlying account of scientific conventionality, however, is insufficient for theoretical and practical reasons. Conventions may be justified in virtue of their coordinative functions, but often qualify for posterior empirical criticism as research advances. Accordingly, industry bias does not only threaten existing conventions but may impede their empirically warranted improvement if they align with industry preferences. My empiricist account of standards of inductive risk avoids such a problem by asserting that conventional justification can be pragmatically warranted but has, in principle, only a provisional status. Methodological conventions, therefore, should not only be defended from preference-based infringements of their coordinative function but ought to be subjected to empirical criticism.
Research Metrics and Analytics, values in science, conventionalism, methodological conventions, inductive risk, randomized controlled trials, industry bias
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020.599506
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/315624
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Licence URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/