Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-7vqc4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T16:08:18.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Problem of Intransigently Biased Agents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Bennett Holman  and
Justin P. Bruner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years the social nature of scientific inquiry has generated considerable interest. We examine the effect of an epistemically impure agent on a community of honest truth seekers. Extending a formal model of network epistemology pioneered by Zollman, we conclude that an intransigently biased agent prevents the community from ever converging to the truth. We explore two solutions to this problem, including a novel procedure for endogenous network formation in which agents choose whom to trust. We contend that our model nicely captures aspects of current problems in medical research and gesture at some morals for medical epistemology more generally.

Information

Type
Game Theory and Formal Models
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 82 , Issue 5 , December 2015 , pp. 956 - 968
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

This work was largely completed while the authors were graduate students at the University of California, Irvine. A special thanks to Kyle Stanford for his encouragement and the trust he placed in me (B. H.) to find my own way. We both owe a debt of gratitude to Brian Skyrms and the rest of the UCI Social Dynamics Seminar for providing direction during the formative stages of this work. Thanks also to audiences at the Formal Epistemology Workshop and the Understanding Epistemic Injustice Conference for their feedback on earlier versions of this work. Finally, our most sincere appreciation goes to Benjamin Rin for reading a final draft with characteristic persnicketiness.

References

Alexander, Jason. 2013. “Preferential Attachment and the Search for Successful Theories.” Philosophy of Science 80:269–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angell, Marcia. 2004. The Truth about Drug Companies. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Bamigboye, Anthony, and Morris, Jonathan. 2003. “Oestrogen Supplementation, Mainly Diethylstilbestrol, for Preventing Miscarriages and Other Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 3, Art. No. CD004353.Google Scholar
Bekelman, Justin, Li, Yan, and Gross, Cary. 2003. “Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research.” JAMA 289:454–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cho, Mildred, and Bero, Lisa. 1996. “The Quality of Drug Studies in Symposium Proceedings.” Annals of Internal Medicine 124:485–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dutton, Diana. 1988. Worse than the Disease: Pitfalls of Medical Progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Carl. 2010. White Coat Black Hat: Adventures on the Dark Side of Medicine. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Elliott, Kevin. 2011. Is a Little Pollution Good for You? Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Mathew. 2005. “A Survey of Models of Network Formation: Stability and Efficiency.” In Group Formation in Economics: Networks, Clubs and Coalitions, ed. Demange, Gabrielle and Wooders, Myrna, 11–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krimsky, Sheldon. 2003. Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Medical Research? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Langston, Nancy. 2010. Toxic Bodies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Meyers, Robert. 1983. DES: The Bitter Pill. New York: Seaview/Putnam.Google Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi, and Conway, Erik. 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Rochon, Paula, Gurwitz, Jerry, Simms, Robert, Fortin, Paul, Felson, David, Minaker, Kenneth, and Chalmers, Thomas. 1994. “A Study of Manufacturer-Supported Trials of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs in the Treatment of Arthritis.” Archives of Internal Medicine 154:157–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Safer, Daniel. 2002. “Design and Reporting Modifications in Industry-Sponsored Comparative Psychopharmacology Trials.” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorder 190:583–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zollman, Kevin. 2007. “The Communication Structure of Epistemic Communities.” Philosophy of Science 74:574–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zollman, Kevin 2010. “The Epistemic Benefit of Transient Diversity.” Erkenntnis 72:17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zollman, Kevin 2013. “Network Epistemology: Communication in Epistemic Communities.” Philosophy Compass 8:15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar