What do numerical (climate) models really represent?
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (2):296-302 (2011)
| Abstract | The translation of a mathematical model into a numerical one employs various modifications in order to make the model accessible for computation. Such modifications include discretizations, approximations, heuristic assumptions, and other methods. The paper investigates the divergent styles of mathematical and numerical models in the case of a specific piece of code in a current atmospheric model. Cognizance of these modifications means that the question of the role and function of scientific models has to be reworked. Neither are numerical models pure intermediaries between theory and data, nor are they autonomous tools of inquiry. Instead, theory and data are transformed into a new symbolic form of research due to the fact that computation has become an essential requirement for every scientific practice. Therefore the question is posed: What do numerical (climate) models really represent? | |||||||||
| Keywords | Climate models Computing Symbolic forms Scientific modelling | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesW. S. Parker (2006). Understanding Pluralism in Climate Modeling. Foundations of Science 11 (4):349-368.
Wendy S. Parker (2009). Confirmation and Adequacy-for-Purpose in Climate Modelling. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 83 (1):233-249.
Elisabeth A. Lloyd (2009). Varieties of Support and Confirmation of Climate Models. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 83 (1):213-232.
Elisabeth A. Lloyd (2010). Confirmation and Robustness of Climate Models. Philosophy of Science 77 (5):971–984.
Joel Katzav (2013). Hybrid Models, Climate Models, and Inference to the Best Explanation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (1):107-129.
Naomi Oreskes, Kristin Shrader-Frechette & Kenneth Belitz (1994). Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences. Science 263 (5147):641-646.
Daniela M. Bailer-Jones (2003). When Scientific Models Represent. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17 (1):59 – 74.
Rosanna Keefe (2012). Modelling Vagueness: What Can We Ignore? Philosophical Studies 161 (3):453-470.
K. Steele & C. Werndl (forthcoming). Climate Models, Calibration, and Confirmation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
Peter Krebs (2007). Virtual Models and Simulations. Techné 11 (1):42-54.
Mike Page (2000). Sticking to the Manifesto. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):496-505.
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic (2011). Significance of Models of Computation, From Turing Model to Natural Computation. Minds and Machines 21 (2):301-322.
S. Ducheyne (2008). Towards an Ontology of Scientific Models. Metaphysica 9 (1):119-127.
Stephan Hartmann (1995). Models as a Tool for Theory Construction: Some Strategies of Preliminary Physics. In William Herfel et al (ed.), Theories and Models in Scientific Processes. Rodopi.
Tarja Knuuttila (2011). Modelling and Representing: An Artefactual Approach to Model-Based Representation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (2):262-271.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-06-14Total downloads4 ( #178,585 of 549,067 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,067 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
