Scientific Disagreements and the Diagnosticity of Evidence: How Too Much Data May Lead to Polarization

Matteo Michelini (), Javier Osorio (), Wybo Houkes (), Dunja Šešelja () and Christian Straßer ()
Additional contact information
Dunja Šešelja: https://www.tue.nl/en/research/researchers/dunja-seselja
Christian Straßer: https://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/defeasible-reasoning/c/christian.html

Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 2023, vol. 26, issue 4, 5

Abstract: Scientific disagreements sometimes persist even if scientists fully share results of their research. In this paper we develop an agent-based model to study the impact of diverging diagnostic values scientists may assign to the evidence, given their different background assumptions, on the emergence of polarization in the scientific community. Our results suggest that an initial disagreement on the diagnostic value of evidence can, but does not necessarily, lead to polarization, depending on the sample size of the performed studies and the confidence interval within which scientists share their opinions. In particular, the more data scientists share, the more likely it is that the community will end up polarized.

Keywords: Diagnostic Value of Evidence; Scientific Disagreement; Polarization (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023-10-31
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.jasss.org/26/4/5/5.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:jas:jasssj:2022-151-2

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation from Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Francesco Renzini ().