Intervention and experiment

Area of Science:

• Philosophy of Science
• Scientific Methodology

Background:

• The dominant view defines scientific experimentation by active intervention.
• This perspective, though common, lacks explicit defense.
• Arguments for intervention include uncovering causal structures and improving evidence quality.

Purpose of the Study:

• To reconstruct and refute arguments favoring interventionist scientific experiments.
• To evaluate the epistemic status of non-interventionist studies.
• To broaden the definition of scientific experiment.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of arguments supporting the necessity and superiority of interventionist experiments.
• Examination of diverse non-interventionist studies across various scientific fields.
• Philosophical reconstruction and critique of experimental methodology.

Main Results:

• Interventionist experiments are not inherently epistemically superior to non-interventionist studies.
• Non-interventionist studies can yield robust scientific evidence.
• The value of intervention is acknowledged, but its necessity is questioned.

Conclusions:

• Non-interventionist studies can be classified as proper experiments.
• The received view of scientific experimentation needs revision.
• A more inclusive understanding of scientific experiment is proposed, valuing both interventionist and non-interventionist approaches.