On the Limits of Experimental Knowledge

TL;DR

This paper explores the fundamental limits of experimental knowledge, emphasizing the role of inductive triangulation in validating scientific theories, especially in astrophysics and analogue gravity, beyond mere manipulability of phenomena.

Contribution

It introduces the concept of inductive triangulation as a key factor in establishing the reliability and establishment of experimental knowledge in scientific practice.

Findings

Reliability of experimental knowledge depends on inductive triangulation.

Strategies for inductive triangulation can mitigate or eliminate reasonable doubt.

Next-generation analogue experiments may provide genuine knowledge of inaccessible phenomena.

Abstract

To demarcate the limits of experimental knowledge we probe the limits of what might be called an experiment. By appeal to examples of scientific practice from astrophysics and analogue gravity, we demonstrate that the reliability of knowledge regarding certain phenomena gained from an experiment is not circumscribed by the manipulability or accessibility of the target phenomena. Rather, the limits of experimental knowledge are set by the extent to which strategies for what we call `inductive triangulation' are available: that is, the validation of the mode of inductive reasoning involved in the source-target inference via appeal to one or more distinct and independent modes of inductive reasoning. When such strategies are able to partially mitigate reasonable doubt, we can take a theory regarding the phenomena to be well supported by experiment. When such strategies are able to fully mitigate reasonable doubt, we can take a theory regarding the phenomena to be established by experiment. There are good reasons to expect the next generation of analogue experiments to provide genuine knowledge of unmanipulable and inaccessible phenomena such that the relevant theories can be understood as well supported.