Dr Sohail Ansari

  Why quotation marks around “good research”? I put: “good research” in quotation marks because I am discussing the category as defined by a disciplinary community, not claiming that “good” has no objective meaning. For example: A historian may regard extensive primary-source evidence as a mark of good research. The quotation marks signal: “good” according to the standards being discussed. “what counts as good research within a discipline” because that clearly separates: standards used by a community; the possibility that those standards themselves can be rationally justified.

  Why “or”? I used “or” because these are different possible levels of control : control over research questions or control over methods or control over conclusions or control over dissemination. An institution might control one without controlling all four. If it controls all four, then “predetermined” becomes much more defensible.

  If research questions are controlled, are the other things predetermined? To an extent, yes. This is an important refinement. Suppose an institution determines: “Researchers may investigate only Question A.” Then: Question selection is controlled. That substantially constrains: methods; evidence; possible findings; conclusions. But it still does not necessarily predetermine the conclusion . For example: Question: “Does Policy X improve economic growth?” Researchers may be required to investigate that question. But the evidence could show: Yes. or: No. So controlling the question constrains the universe of possible knowledge, but does not necessarily dictate the answer .

  “Predisposed” vs “not to use predisposed” There is no contradiction once we distinguish possible use from recommended use. “Knowledge production was predisposed toward A” if you have not demonstrated it. “‘Predisposed’ can be methodologically safer than ‘predetermined.’” I meant relative to “predetermined.” The scale is roughly: Influenced to inclined toward to predisposed toward to structured toward to strongly constrained to predetermined The exact boundaries aren't fixed, but the general idea is: “Predetermined” Very strong. Implies substantial prior determination. “Predisposed” Weaker. Means: conditions make one direction more likely than another. So if your evidence shows: institutions systematically make research on A easier and more rewarding, you might reasonably say: “The research environment was predisposed toward A.” But if all you know is: “A received more research than B,” even “predisposed” may be premature because you haven't established the mechanism.

  Your Holocaust example is exactly where the problem becomes more serious Suppose: A, B and C = studies about the Holocaust and: D, E, F, G, H, I, J = perspectives that deny or substantially challenge the established account. Now suppose institutions overwhelmingly fund, publish and teach A–C while D–J are systematically excluded. You are right: You cannot conclude that A–C are false merely because D–J were excluded. But you can conclude something potentially important about the completeness of the scholarly picture . And if D–J contain relevant evidence or arguments that should have been considered, their exclusion could make the resulting literature: incomplete; one-sided; potentially misleading. Gaza example Similarly, if research about a conflict systematically examines: Israeli perspectives, while almost entirely excluding: Palestinian perspectives, then the resulting literature may be epistemically incomplete , particularly for questions co...

  “Basically correct” and why “predetermined” is too strong “Basically correct” Basically means: correct in its main idea, while possibly requiring qualification or refinement. understanding of institutional support is basically correct if one correctly recognizes that support can come from: governments; corporations; wealthy individuals; foundations; other institutions. But the inference from support to predetermination requires more evidence. Why “predetermined” is strong “Predetermined” literally suggests: determined in advance. For example: “The conclusion was predetermined before the research began.” That implies a very high degree of control. If a foundation merely says: “We fund research on renewable energy,” that does not mean: “We determine what every researcher will conclude.” The foundation may influence the topic without determining the answer. That is why “predetermined” is too strong unless one has evidence of substantial contr...