Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T20:25:32.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Locality of Data and Claims about Phenomena

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Sabina Leonelli
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bogen and Woodward characterized data as embedded in the context in which they are produced (‘local’) and claims about phenomena as retaining their significance beyond that context (‘nonlocal’). This view does not fit sciences such as biology, which successfully disseminate data via packaging processes that include appropriate labels, vehicles, and human interventions. These processes enhance the evidential scope of data and ensure that claims about phenomena are understood in the same way across research communities. I conclude that the degree of locality of both data and claims about phenomena varies depending on the packaging used to make them travel and on the research setting in which they are used.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 76 , Issue 5 , December 2009 , pp. 737 - 749
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

Mary Morgan's insightful suggestions and advice have been crucial to the development of this article. Warm thanks also to Maureen O’Malley, the ‘facts’ group, Julian Reiss, David Teira, and audiences at the SPSP (Society for the Philosophy of Science in Practice) 2007 and the PSA 2008 conferences for very helpful discussions. This research was funded by the Leverhulme/Economic and Social Research Council project The Nature of Evidence: How Well Do ‘Facts’ Travel? (grant F/07004/Z) at the Department of Economic History, London School of Economics, and by the ESRC Centre for Genomics in Society at the University of Exeter.

References

Ankeny, Rachel (2007), “Wormy Logic: Model Organisms as Case-Based Reasoning”, in Creager, Angela N. H., Lunbeck, Elizabeth, and Wise, M. Norton (eds.), Science without Laws: Model Systems, Cases, Exemplary Narratives. Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press, 46–58.Google Scholar
Bogen, James, and Woodward, James (1988), “Saving the Phenomena”, Saving the Phenomena 97 (3): 303–352..Google Scholar
Gilbert, Walter (1991), “Towards a Paradigm Shift in Biology”, Towards a Paradigm Shift in Biology 349 (6305): 99.Google ScholarPubMed
Hacking, Ian (1992), “The Self-Vindication of the Laboratory Sciences”, in Pickering, A. (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 29–64.Google Scholar
Knorr Cetina, Karen D. (1999), Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Krohs, Ulrich, and Callebaut, Werner (2007), “Data without Models Merging with Models without Data”, in Boogerd, Fred C., Bruggeman, Frank J., Hofmeyr, Hans S., and Westerhoff, Hans V. (eds.), Systems Biology: Philosophical Foundations. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 181–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonelli, Sabina (2008a), “Bio-Ontologies as Tools for Integration in Biology”, Bio-Ontologies as Tools for Integration in Biology 3 (1): 8–11..Google Scholar
Leonelli, Sabina (2008b), Circulating Evidence across Research Contexts: The Locality of Data and Claims in Model Organism Research. The Nature of Evidence: How Well Do ‘Facts’ Travel? Working Paper no. 25/08, Department of Economic History. London: London School of Economics, http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/economicHistory/pdf/FACTSPDF/2508Leonelli.pdf.Google Scholar
McAllister, James W. (1997), “Phenomena and Patterns in Data Sets”, Phenomena and Patterns in Data Sets 47:217–228.Google Scholar
Rhee, Sue Y., Dickerson, Julie, and Xu, Dong (2006), “Bioinformatics and Its Applications in Plant Biology”, Bioinformatics and Its Applications in Plant Biology 57:335–360.Google ScholarPubMed