David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 76 (1):25 - 48 (1988)
This paper examines two models used in survey research to explain voting behavior. Although the models rely on the same data they make radically different predictions about the political future. Nevertheless, both models may be more or less correct. The models represent interacting systems and it may be impossible to get a super model of the interactions between their elements. In the natural sciences causal relationships between the elements of interacting models can often be ignored. Because voting behavior models describe phenomena that are roughly the same size, the reciprocal relationships between elements of different models severely restrict the predictive power of voting behavior models. Certain analogies, and disanalogies, between the use of models in natural and social science explain why the social sciences cannot predict many of the events they are able to explain.
|Keywords||political attitudes philosophy of social science|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Thomas S. Kuhn (1996/2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Ian Hacking (1983). Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge University Press.
Nancy Cartwright (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford University Press.
Ronald N. Giere (1997). Understanding Scientific Reasoning. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
Ronald N. Giere (1985). Philosophy of Science Naturalized. Philosophy of Science 52 (3):331-356.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Douglas Hanes & Gin McCollum (2003). Dimensionality and Explanatory Power of Reading Models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (4):486-487.
Dennis Krebs (2000). On Levels of Analysis and Theoretical Integration: Models of Social Behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (2):260-261.
Fany Yuval (2002). Sophisticated Voting Under the Sequential Voting by Veto. Theory and Decision 53 (4):343-369.
Ronald N. Giere (1999). Using Models to Represent Reality. In L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian & P. Thagard (eds.), Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery. Kluwer/Plenum 41--57.
Martijn Meeter, Janneke Jehee & Jaap Murre (2007). Neural Models That Convince: Model Hierarchies and Other Strategies to Bridge the Gap Between Behavior and the Brain. Philosophical Psychology 20 (6):749 – 772.
Sam S. Rakover (1997). Can Psychology Provide a Coherent Account of Human Behavior? A Proposed Multiexplanation-Model Theory. Behavior and Philosophy 25 (1):43 - 76.
Alisa Bokulich (2011). How Scientific Models Can Explain. Synthese 180 (1):33 - 45.
Peter E. Midford (2001). Robots Aren't the Only Physical Models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (6):1069-1070.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads22 ( #130,340 of 1,725,162 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #268,621 of 1,725,162 )
How can I increase my downloads?