Abstract
An experiment, in the standard scientific sense of the term, is a procedure in which some object of study is subjected to interventions (manipulations) that aim at obtaining a predictable outcome or at least predictable aspects of the outcome. The distinction between an experiment and a non-experimental observation is important since they are tailored to different epistemic needs. Experimentation has its origin in pre-scientific technological experiments that were undertaken in order to find the best technological means to achieve chosen ends. Important parts of the methodological arsenal of modern experimental science can be traced back to this pre-scientific, technological tradition. It is claimed that experimentation involves a unique combination of acting and observing, a combination whose unique epistemological properties have not yet been fully clarified.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This corresponds to the word “Wissenschaft” in German with its close analogues in some other Germanic languages. See Hansson (2013) for an argument why this wider disciplinary delimitation is more adequate than the traditional one in the English language.
The therapeutic nihilists thought otherwise, see Wiesemann (1991).
Even today, promoters of so-called experimental philosophy use the term “experiment” about questionnaires and other studies that behavioural scientists would classify as observational non-experimental studies. For a criticism, see Hansson (2014).
Obviously, it need not be known beforehand which aspects of the outcome are determined by the setup, or in particular how they are determined by it.
The term “scientific experiment” is not useful for the purpose since it excludes controlled experiments performed in a non-scientific setting, for instance in the traditions among farmers and craftspeople referred to in Sect. 3.
The distinction was introduced in Hansson (2015). Strictly speaking, the distinction is not between different types of experiments but between different types of interpretations of experiments, viz. the interpretation of experiments for action-guiding or epistemic purposes. However, since most experiments are purposeful only for one of the two types of interpretation the convenient locution of two types of experiments will be used here.
See Hansson (2015) for a more extensive treatment.
It may not be preferable tout court, for instance if there are ethical reasons not to perform the experiment.
They are of course not completely theory-independent. My claim is (only) that they are radically less so than epistemic experiments, and in fact not more theory-dependent than any non-empty statement about empirical subject-matter.—It should also be noted that theory-ladenness refers to the interpretation of experiments rather than to their physical execution. Therefore, strictly speaking, the distinction made here concerns action-guiding versus epistemic interpretations of experiments. Cf. footnote 6.
The reliability of an experiment is closely related to its repeatability.
References
Armitage, P. (1982). The role of randomisation in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 1, 345–352.
Bacon, F. ([1605] 1869). The Advancement of Learning [Of the Proficience and Advancement of Learning, Divine and Human]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bray, W. (2000). Ancient food for thought. Nature, 408(9), 145–146.
Bullock, J. D., Wang, J. P., & Bullock, G. H. (1998). Was Dom Perignon really blind? Survey of Ophthalmology, 42, 481–486.
Chandler, P. M. (1991). The indigenous knowledge of ecological processes among peasants in the People’s Republic of China. Agriculture and Human Values, 8, 59–66.
Claridge, J. A., & Fabian, T. C. (2005). History and development of evidence-based medicine. World Journal of Surgery, 29, 547–553.
Cooper, M. (2011). Trial by accident: Tort law, industrial risks and the history of medical experiment. Journal of Cultural Economy, 4(1), 81–96.
de Quincy, A. C. Q. (1817). Institut de France, Le Moniteur universel, August 22 1817, no 234, p. 924.
Doll, R. (1998). Controlled trials: The 1948 watershed. BMJ. British Medical Journal, 317(7167), 1217–1220.
Earls, J. (1998). The character of Inca and Andean Agriculture. Accessed 29 July 2013. http://macareo.pucp.edu.pe/jearls/documentosPDF/theCharacter.PDF
Eastwood, B. S. (1968). Mediaeval empiricism: The case of Grosseteste’s optics. Speculum: A Journal of Mediaeval Studies, 43, 306–321.
Fétis, F.-J. (1868). Biographie Universelle des Musiciens et Bibliographie Générale de la Musique. Tome 1 (2nd ed.). Paris: Firmin Didot Frères, Fils, et Cie.
Habermas, J. (1968). Erkenntnis und interesse. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkampf Verlag.
Habermas, J. (1978). Knowledge and human interests (J. J. Shapiro, Trans). London: Heinemann. ( 2nd edition).
Hansson, S. O. (2011). Do we need a special ethics for research? Science and Engineering Ethics, 17:21–29.
Hansson, S. O. (2013). Defining pseudoscience – and science. In M. Pigliucci & M. Boundry (Eds.), The Philosophy of Pseudoscience (pp. 61–77). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Hansson, S. O. (2014). Beyond experimental philosophy. Theoria, 80:1–3.
Hansson, S. O. (2015). Experiments before science? - what science learned from technological experiments. In S. O. Hansson (Ed.), The role of technology in science. Philosophical perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Henderson, J., McLoughlin, S. D., & McPhail, D. S. (2004). Radical changes in Islamic glass technology: Evidence for conservatism and experimentation with new glass recipes from early and middle Islamic Raqqa, Syria. Archaeometry, 46(3), 439–468.
Henderson, J., Challis, K., OHara, S., McLoughlin, S., Gardner, A., & Priestnall, G. (2005). Experiment and innovation: Early Islamic industry at al-Raqqa, Syria. Antiquity, 79(303), 130–145.
Herschel, Wi. (1831). A preliminary discourse on the study of natural philosophy, part of Dionysius Lardner, Cabinet Cyclopaedia. Chicago.
Jerkert, J. (2013). Why alternative medicine can be scientifically evaluated: Countering the evasions of pseudoscience. In M. Pigliucci & M. Boudry (Eds.), The philosophy of pseudoscience (pp. 305–320). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Jevons, W. S. (1920). The principles of science: A treatise on logic and scientific method. London.
Johnson, A. W. (1972). Individuality and experimentation in traditional agriculture. Human Ecology, 1(2), 149–159.
Kaptchuk, T. J. (1998). Intentional ignorance: A history of blind assessment and placebo controls in medicine. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 72(3), 389–433.
Klein, U. (1996). Experiment, Spiritus und okkulte Qualitäten in der Philosophie Francis Bacons. Philosophia Naturalis, 33(2), 289–315.
Klein, U. (2005). Experiments at the intersection of experimental history, technological inquiry, and conceptually driven analysis: A case study from early nineteenth-century France. Perspectives on Science, 13, 1–48.
Lopez, C.-A. (1993). Franklin and Mesmer: An encounter. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 66(4), 325–331.
McEvoy, J. (1982). The philosophy of Robert Grosseteste. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
McGinnis, J. (2003). Scientific methodologies in Medieval Islam. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 41, 307–327.
Malina, J. (1983). Archaeology and experiment. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 16(2), 69–78.
Mark, R. (1972). The structural analysis of Gothic cathedrals. Scientific American, 227(5), 90–99.
Mark, R. (1978). Structural experimentation in Gothic architecture: Large-scale experimentation brought Gothic cathedrals to a level of technical elegance unsurpassed until the last century. American Scientist, 66(5), 542–550.
Marshall, G., et al. (1948). Streptomycin treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis: A medical research council investigation. British Medical Journal, 2(4582), 769–782.
Mill, J. S. ([1843] 1974). A system of logic ratiocinative and inductive. In J. M. Robson (Ed.), Collected works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. VII. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Moropoulou, A., Bakolas, A., & Anagnostopoulou, S. (2005). Composite materials in ancient structures. Cement & Concrete Composites, 27, 295–300.
Pesic, P. (1999). Wrestling with Proteus: Francis Bacon and the ‘torture’ of nature. Isis, 90, 81–94.
Richards, P. (1989). Farmers also experiment: A neglected intellectual resource in African science. Discovery and Innovation, 1, 19–25.
Richter, E. D., Barach, P., Berman, T., Ben-David, G., & Weinberger, Z. (2001). Extending the boundaries of the declaration of Helsinki: A case study of an unethical experiment in a non-medical setting. Journal of Medical Ethics, 27, 126–129.
Robison, W. (2008). Hume and the experimental method of reasoning. Southwest Philosophy Review, 10(1), 29–37.
Russell, B. (1913). On the notion of a cause. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 13, 1–26.
Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Ryle, G. (1971 [1946]). Knowing how and knowing that. In: G. Ryle, Collected papers, volume 2. (pp. 212–225). New York: Barnes and Nobles.
Schramm, M. (1963). Ibn al-Haythams Weg zur Physik. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Sedlmeier, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (1997). Intuitions about sample size: The empirical law of large numbers. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 33–51.
Shapin, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Shapin, S. (1996). The scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stolberg, M. (2006). Inventing the randomized double-blind trial: The Nuremberg salt test of 1835. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 642–643.
Sutton, G. (1981). Electric medicine and mesmerism. Isis, 72(3), 375–392.
Tiles, J. E. (1993). Experiment as intervention. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 44(3), 463–475.
Wiesemann, C. (1991). Josef Dietl und der therapeutische Nihilismus: zum historischen und politischen Hintergrund einer medizinischen These, volume 28 of Marburger Schriften zur Medizingeschichte. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Williams, D. D. R., & Garner, J. (2002). The case against ‘the evidence’: A different perspective on evidence-based medicine. British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 8–12.
Wolfe, M., & Mark, R. (1974). Gothic cathedral buttressing: The experiment at Bourges and its influence. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 33(1):17–26.
Zagorin, P. (1998). Francis Bacon. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Zilsel, E. (1941). The origin of William Gilberts scientific method. Journal of the History of Ideas, 2, 1–32.
Zilsel, E. (1942). The sociological roots of science. American Journal of Sociology, 47, 544–562.
Zilsel, E. (2000). The social origins of modern science. In D. Raven, W. Krohn, & R. S. Cohen (Eds.), Boston studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 200). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hansson, S.O. Experiments: Why and How?. Sci Eng Ethics 22, 613–632 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9635-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9635-3