Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,020
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Method Hierarchy Exists (view source)
Revision as of 20:01, 5 February 2023
, 20:01, 5 February 2023Created page with "{{Existence Theory |Topic=Existence of Method Hierarchy |Existence=Exists |Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan, Mathew Mercur |Formulated Year=2019 |Formulation File= |Description=A..."
{{Existence Theory
|Topic=Existence of Method Hierarchy
|Existence=Exists
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan, Mathew Mercur
|Formulated Year=2019
|Formulation File=
|Description=As argued by [[Mathew Mercuri|Mercuri]] and [[Hakob Barseghyan|Barseghyan]], it is often the case that "criteria employed by the same epistemic agent constitute a certain preference hierarchy",[[CiteRef::Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019)|p. 45]] illustrated among other things by the fact that "practitioners in different fields customarily speak of more or less reliable evidence".[[CiteRef::Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019)|p. 46]] For example, when the community of art historians attempts to establish the authenticity of a certain work of art, they often accept the position of the expert they find most reliable; if, for whatever reason, this expert doesn't have a position on the authenticity of that work of art, the community refers to their second-best expert, and so on.[[CiteRef::Loiselle (2017)]] Another example of method hierarchies comes from the field of clinical epidemiology that features "a variety of different requirements – from more stringent to more lenient".[[CiteRef::Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019)|p. 58]] Thus, when the requirements of the randomized controlled trial method are met, the results of the study become accepted. If however, when no studies meet these requirements, clinical epidemiologists often accept the results of studies that satisfy less stringent requirements. Mercuri and Barseghyan discuss a number of such cases in their [[Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019)|''Method Hierarchies in Clinical Epidemiology'']].[[CiteRef::Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019)]]
|Resource=Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019)
|Prehistory=
|History=
|Page Status=Stub
|Editor Notes=
}}
|Topic=Existence of Method Hierarchy
|Existence=Exists
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan, Mathew Mercur
|Formulated Year=2019
|Formulation File=
|Description=As argued by [[Mathew Mercuri|Mercuri]] and [[Hakob Barseghyan|Barseghyan]], it is often the case that "criteria employed by the same epistemic agent constitute a certain preference hierarchy",[[CiteRef::Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019)|p. 45]] illustrated among other things by the fact that "practitioners in different fields customarily speak of more or less reliable evidence".[[CiteRef::Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019)|p. 46]] For example, when the community of art historians attempts to establish the authenticity of a certain work of art, they often accept the position of the expert they find most reliable; if, for whatever reason, this expert doesn't have a position on the authenticity of that work of art, the community refers to their second-best expert, and so on.[[CiteRef::Loiselle (2017)]] Another example of method hierarchies comes from the field of clinical epidemiology that features "a variety of different requirements – from more stringent to more lenient".[[CiteRef::Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019)|p. 58]] Thus, when the requirements of the randomized controlled trial method are met, the results of the study become accepted. If however, when no studies meet these requirements, clinical epidemiologists often accept the results of studies that satisfy less stringent requirements. Mercuri and Barseghyan discuss a number of such cases in their [[Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019)|''Method Hierarchies in Clinical Epidemiology'']].[[CiteRef::Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019)]]
|Resource=Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019)
|Prehistory=
|History=
|Page Status=Stub
|Editor Notes=
}}
