Carving joints into nature: reengineering scientific concepts in light of concept-laden evidence

A new wave of proposals suggests that scientists must reassess scientific con-cepts in light of accumulated evidence. However, reengineering scientific con-cepts in light of data is challenging because scientific concepts affect the evidence itself in multiple ways. Among other possible influences, concepts (i) prime scientists to overemphasize within-concept similarities and between-concept differences; (ii) lead scientists to measure conceptually relevant dimen-sions more accurately; (iii) serve as units of scientific experimentation, communi-cation, and theory-building; and (iv) affect the phenomena themselves. When looking for improved ways to carve nature at its joints, scholars must take the concept-laden nature of evidence into account to avoid entering a vicious circle of concept-evidence mutual substantiation.

Automated summary

A new wave of proposals suggests the need for scientists to reassess scientific concepts based on accumulated evidence. However, this is challenging because scientific concepts influence the evidence itself in multiple ways, such as priming scientists' perceptions and affecting the phenomena being studied. To avoid a vicious circle of concept-evidence mutual substantiation, scholars must consider the concept-laden nature of evidence when seeking improved ways to understand the nature of reality.