Epistemological depth in a GM crops controversy

Area of Science:

• Agricultural Science
• Philosophy of Science
• Epistemology

Background:

• Scientific controversies, such as those surrounding genetically modified [GM] crops, often involve deep disagreements about evidence.
• Appeals to "the evidence" are frequently insufficient to resolve these disputes.

Purpose of the Study:

• To examine the controversy over GM crop yields as a case study in epistemologically deep disagreements.
• To identify the specific epistemological frameworks underlying the debate on GM crop yields.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of the epistemological frameworks used by proponents and opponents of GM crops.
• Comparison of classical experimental epistemology with Nancy Cartwright's "evidence for use" framework.

Main Results:

• Proponents and opponents of GM crops cite different sets of claims as evidence, reflecting rival epistemological frameworks.
• Classical experimental epistemology and "evidence for use" represent two distinct approaches to evidence in the GM crop debate.

Conclusions:

• Disagreements over GM crop yields are rooted in incompatible views on what constitutes valid evidence, stemming from different epistemological frameworks.
• Even with shared frameworks like "evidence for use," disagreements may persist due to the context-dependent nature of evidence standards.