Reposted by Matt Brewer
In their 🆕📄, @alisabokulich.bsky.social & @mattbrewer.bsky.social argue that targeted observation practices in the #geosciences owe much to Peirce’s views on the economy of research, which are better understood as an account of the pursuitworthiness of #data 👇 link.springer.com/article/10.1... #HPS
![My argument consists of two parts. The first part illustrates what I call the alignment approach to
quantification and shows that it presumes a basic but unsubstantiated premise. Proponents of the
alignment approach argue that political legitimacy should be added "as an additional layer of security (...] to the familiar scientific process covered in textbooks on measurement" (Fabian and
Alexandrova 2022, 6; similarly: Duque, Tal, and Barbic 2024, 9). While they disagree on how to operationalize legitimacy, they agree that it requires a procedure for aligning value-laden choices
with the values of relevant stakeholders. All operationalizations of the alignment approach presume that the empirical constraints on quantitative measurement are loose enough to reach
quantification along multiple, stakeholder-specific pathways. Proponents of the alignment approach have yet to provide evidence that this basic premise is correct.
The second part of my argument casts doubts on the basic premise.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:a7bwjxnqslemro4mrguw5vfv/bafkreidbbgcbyg6bmcwogpswz7trdkh4igmhu72t47gzqhzdxmx6gkdrsy)
