Philosophy of science has pointed out a problem of theoretical terms in empirical sciences. This problem arises if all known measuring procedures for a quantity of a theory presuppose the validity of this very theory, because then statements containing theoretical terms are circular. We argue that a similar circularity can happen in empirical computational linguistics, especially in cases where data are manually annotated by experts. We define a criterion of T-non-theoretical grounding as guidance to avoid such circularities, and exemplify how this criterion can be met by crowdsourcing, by task-related data annotation, or by data in the wild. We argue that this criterion should be considered as a necessary condition for an empirical science, in addition to measures for reliability of data annotation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stefan Riezler (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: