When evidence underdetermines theory choice, non-epistemic values necessarily fill the rational gap, making 'sociological' factors constitutive of rationality rather than distortions of it.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Constitutive of rationality(as used in epistemology and logic): Something that is a necessary part of what makes reasoning work, rather than being a flaw or mistake in reasoning.
Evidence underdetermines theory(describes a situation in science and philosophy where data doesn't clearly point to one answer): When the facts we observe can support multiple different explanations equally well, so evidence alone can't tell us which explanation is correct.
Non-epistemic values(Douglas (2000), p. 565): Ethical value judgements that enter into decisions at stages internal to scientific reasoning, such as data collection and interpretation, as distinct from purely cognitive or theory-evaluative criteria.
Rational gap(the statement argues that when evidence runs out, other factors fill this gap): A space or problem that pure logic and reason alone cannot solve, leaving room for something else to step in.

Based on where you are in your exploration