Abstract
In this article we defend the inferential view of scientific models and idealisation. Models are seen as “inferential prostheses” (instruments for surrogative reasoning) construed by means of an idealisation-concretisation process, which we essentially understand as a kind of counterfactual deformation procedure (also analysed in inferential terms). The value of scientific representation is understood in terms not only of the success of the inferential outcomes arrived at with its help, but also of the heuristic power of representation and their capacity to correct and improve our models. This provides us with an argument against Sugden’s account of credible models: the likelihood or realisticness (their “credibility”) is not always a good measure of their acceptability. As opposed to “credibility” we propose the notion of “enlightening”, which is the capacity of giving us understanding in the sense of an inferential ability.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It is also important to note that inferential norms include not only such licensing logical, formally valid inferences, but also material inferences (e.g., from “it’s raining” to “the floor will be wet”). The inferential role Grüne-Yanoff (2009, Sect. 2) attached to the interpretational component of models would refer precisely to such material inferences.
In this sense, mathematical models also allow us to learn about (mathematical) theories, in the sense of helping to actually derive consequences from the axioms of the latter (cf. Morgan and Morrison 1999).
This is in line with the “methodological” approach to the concept of verisimilitude that has been defended elsewhere by one of us, in which “truthlikeness” is taken as the “epistemic utility function” of scientists and, being a kind of utility, it is assumed to be something that can be subjectively experienced by the relevant agents. Epistemically speaking, truthlikeness (or the appearance of being closer to the truth), is hence, a more primitive concept than truth (Cf. Zamora Bonilla 1992, 2000).
The intuitive idea is that a statement holding in ¼ of all possible worlds will have a degree of contingency of ¾. Later he interprets this in terms similar to those of David Lewis. The degree of contingency of a statement S in the actual world is the maximum degree of closeness of the worlds in which S does not hold with respect to the actual world.
Adapted from Arroyo and de Donato, The structure of idealization in biological theories, unpublished manuscript.
This may be related to Mäki’s idea (this issue) that isolation could be seen as a linear process, at one end of which is a real system, and at the other an abstract system; what we are adding to this view is that the different steps of the isolation process involve different kinds of modalities.
If inferential moves are viewed as a kind of cognitive operation of the mind, it is possible to distinguish two different systems of reasoning (cf. Carruthers 2006, p. 254 ff): one operates in parallel, usually in a quick, automatic and unconscious way, and is constituted of innate mechanisms, and the other supervenes on the operation of the first, usually through conscious inner speech, and depends on culturally transmitted combinations of simpler inferential norms.
References
Atkinson, D. (2003). Experiments and thought experiments in natural science. In M. C. Galavotti (Ed.), Observation and experiment in the natural and social sciences (pp. 209–225). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Boumans, M. (1999). Built-in justification. In M. S. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators (pp. 66–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brandom, R. B. (1994). Making it explicit. Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bueno, O., & Colyvan, M. An inferential conception of the application of mathematics (forthcoming).
Carruthers, P. (2006). The architecture of the mind: massive modularity and the flexibility of thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cartwright, N. (2009). If no capacities then no credible worlds. But can models reveal capacities? Erkenntnis, this issue. doi:10.1007/s10670-008-9136-8.
Contessa, G. (2007). Scientific representation, interpretation, and surrogative reasoning. Philosophy of Science, 74, 48–68.
Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2009). Learning from minimal economic models. Erkenntnis, this issue. doi:10.1007/s10670-008-9138-6.
Hughes, R. I. G. (1997). Models and representation. Philosophy of Science, 64, 325–336.
Ibarra, A., & Mormann, Th. (1998). Datos, fenómenos y constructos teóricos—Un enfoque representacional. Theoria, 31, 61–87.
Ibarra, A., & Mormann, Th. (2006). Scientific theories as intervening representations. Theoria, 55, 21–38.
Jones, M. R. (2005). Idealization and abstraction: A framework. In M. R. Jones & N. Cartwright (Eds.), Idealization XII: Correcting the model. Poznań studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities (Vol. 86, pp. 173–217). New York: Rodopi.
Knuutila, T. (2005). Models, representation, and mediation. Philosophy of Science, 72, 1260–1271.
Laymon, R. (1982). Scientific realism and the hierarchical counterfactual path from data to theory. In P. Asquith & T. Nickles (Eds.), PSA 1982 (Vol. 1, pp. 107–121). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.
Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mäki, U. (1994). Isolation, idealization and truth in economics. In B. Hamminga & N. B. De Marchi (Eds.), Idealization VI: Idealization in economics (pp. 147–168). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Morgan, M. (1999). Learning from models. In M. Morgan & M. S. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators (pp. 347–388). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morgan, M., & Morrison, M. S. (Eds.). (1999). Models as mediators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nozick, R. (2001). Invariances: The structure of the objective world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sorensen, R. (1992). Thought experiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strevens, M. Why explanations lie: Idealization in explanation (forthcoming).
Suárez, M. (2004). An inferential conception of scientific representation. Philosophy of Science, 71, 767–779.
Sugden, R. (2002). Credible worlds: The status of theoretical models in economics. In U. Mäki (Ed.), Fact and fiction in economics. Models, realism and social construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sugden, R. (2009). Credible worlds, capacities and mechanisms. Erkenntnis, this issue. doi:10.1007/s10670-008-9134-x.
Suppe, F. (1989). The semantic conception of theories and scientific realism. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Swoyer, C. (1991). Structural representation and surrogative reasoning. Synthese, 87, 449–508.
Weisberg, M. (2007). Three kinds of idealization. Journal of Philosophy, 104, 12.
Winsberg, E. (2006). Models of success versus the success of models: Reliability without truth. Synthese, 152, 1–19.
Woodward, J. (1989). Data and phenomena. Synthese, 79, 393–472.
Ylikoski, P. (2008). The illusion of depth of understanding in science. In De Regt, Sabinelly, & Eigner (Eds.), Scientific understanding: Philosophical perspectives. Pittsburg: Pittsburg University Press.
Zamora Bonilla, J. (1992). Truthlikeness without truth. A methodological approach. Synthese, 93, 343–372.
Zamora Bonilla, J. (1999). Verisimilitude and the scientific strategy of economic theory. Journal of Economic Methodology, 6, 331–350.
Zamora Bonilla, J. (2000). Truthlikeness, rationality and scientific method. Synthese, 122, 321–335.
Zamora Bonilla, J. (2006a). Science as a persuasion game. Episteme, 2, 189–201.
Zamora Bonilla, J. (2006b). Science studies and the theory of games. Perspectives on Science, 14, 639–671.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
de Donato Rodríguez, X., Zamora Bonilla, J. Credibility, Idealisation, and Model Building: An Inferential Approach. Erkenn 70, 101–118 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-008-9139-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-008-9139-5