Modeling in philosophy of science
In W. K. Essler & M. Frauchiger (eds.), Representation, Evidence, and Justification: Themes From Suppes. Ontos Verlag (2008)
| Abstract | Models are a principle instrument of modern science. They are built, applied, tested, compared, revised and interpreted in an expansive scientific literature. Throughout this paper, I will argue that models are also a valuable tool for the philosopher of science. In particular, I will discuss how the methodology of Bayesian Networks can elucidate two central problems in the philosophy of science. The first thesis I will explore is the variety-of-evidence thesis, which argues that the more varied the supporting evidence, the greater the degree of confirmation for a given hypothesis. However, when investigated using Bayesian methodology, this thesis turns out not to be sacrosanct. In fact, under certain conditions, a hypothesis receives more confirmation from evidence that is obtained from one rather than more instruments, and from evidence that confirms one rather than more testable consequences of the hypothesis. The second challenge that I will investigate is scientific theory change. This application highlights a different virtue of modeling methodology. In particular, I will argue that Bayesian modeling illustrates how two seemingly unrelated aspects of theory change, namely the (Kuhnian) stability of (normal) science and the ability of anomalies to over turn that stability and lead to theory change, are in fact united by a single underlying principle, in this case, coherence. In the end, I will argue that these two examples bring out some metatheoretical reflections regarding the following questions: What are the differences between modeling in science and modeling in philosophy? What is the scope of the modeling method in philosophy? And what does this imply for our understanding of Bayesianism? | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesWilliam Bechtel & Adele Abrahamsen (2010). Dynamic Mechanistic Explanation: Computational Modeling of Circadian Rhythms as an Exemplar for Cognitive Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (3):321-333.
Richard M. Shiffrin (2010). Perspectives on Modeling in Cognitive Science. Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (4):736-750.
Johannes Lenhard (2007). Computer Simulation: The Cooperation Between Experimenting and Modeling. Philosophy of Science 74 (2):176-194.
Luc Bovens & Stephan Hartmann (2002). Bayesian Networks and the Problem of Unreliable Instruments. Philosophy of Science 69 (1):29-72.
Patrick Maher (1988). Prediction, Accommodation, and the Logic of Discovery. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:273 - 285.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads24 ( #51,701 of 549,549 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,418 of 549,549 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
