No abstract

No abstract

This article develops a constructive criticism of methodological conventionalism. Methodological conventionalism asserts that standards of inductive risk ought to be justified in virtue of their ability to facilitate coordination in a research community. On that view, industry bias occurs when conventional methodological standards are violated to foster industry preferences. The underlying account of scientific conventionality, however, is insufficient for theoretical and practical reasons. Conventions may be justified in virtue of their coordinative functions, but often qualify for posterior empirical criticism as research advances. Accordingly, industry bias does not only threaten existing conventions but may impede their empirically warranted improvement if they align with industry preferences. My empiricist account of standards of inductive risk avoids such a problem by asserting that conventional justification can be pragmatically warranted but has, in principle, only a provisional status. Methodological conventions, therefore, should not only be defended from preference-based infringements of their coordinative function but ought to be subjected to empirical criticism.

This paper reconstructs the history of the trigonometrical surveying of Kashmir from 1855 to 1865. It highlights the strategies through which surveyors had to justify the employment of high-precision instruments and methods in Himalayan terrain. Only by tediously manipulating their institutional environment in India and Britain did the staff of the Kashmir survey manage to complete its operations in light of constant financial and physical hardship. To sustain their measurements, surveyors aligned themselves with various political projects, entertaining and shifting allegiances with local rulers, scientific societies, and colonial institutions. After suffering severe cuts to instruments and assistance staff, the party was entirely stripped of funds by the East India Company in 1857 and relied on the material support of Maharaja Gulab Singh. Subsequently, surveyors adopted an expansionist rhetoric to gather the support of the Royal Geographical Society. In doing so, they framed precision as an essential contribution to imperial expansion, effective colonial rule, and intervention in ‘backward’ Kashmiri society and infrastructure. The Kashmir survey illustrates that rendering precision valuable requires an ongoing performative effort of justification to align epistemic with political and institutional interests.

Philosophers and metrologists have refuted the view that measurement’s epistemic privilege in scientific practice is explained by its theory neutrality. Rather, they now explicitly appeal to the role that theories play in measurement. I formulate a challenge for this view: scientists sometimes ascribe epistemic privilege to measurements even if they lack a shared theory about their target quantity, which I illustrate through a case study from early geodesy. Drawing on that case, I argue that the epistemic privilege of measurement can precede shared background theory and is better explained by its pre-theoretic function in enabling a distinctive kind of inquiry.