Triangulation, incommensurability, and conditionalization

Amir Liron*, Ittay Nissan-Rozen

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


We present a new justification for methodological triangulation (MT), the practice of using different methods to support the same scientific claim. Unlike existing accounts, our account captures cases in which the different methods in question are associated with, and rely on, incommensurable theories. Using a nonstandard Bayesian model, we show that even in such cases, a commitment to the minimal form of epistemic conservatism, captured by the rigidity condition that stands at the basis of Jeffrey's conditionalization, supports the practice of MT.

Original languageAmerican English
JournalPhilosophy of Science
StateAccepted/In press - 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association.


Dive into the research topics of 'Triangulation, incommensurability, and conditionalization'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this