The growing availability of computer power and statistical software has greatly increased the ease with which practitioners apply statistical methods, but this has not been accompanied by attention to checking the assumptions on which these methods are based. At the same time, disagreements about inferences based on statistical research frequently revolve around whether the assumptions are actually met in the studies available, e.g., in psychology, ecology, biology, risk assessment. Philosophical scrutiny can help disentangle 'practical' problems of model validation, and conversely, (...) a methodology of statistical model validation can shed light on a number of issues of interest to philosophers of science. (shrink)

In seeking general accounts of evidence, confirmation, or inference, philosophers have looked to logical relationships between evidence and hypotheses. Such logics of evidential relationship, whether hypothetico-deductive, Bayesian, or instantiationist fail to capture or be relevant to scientific practice. They require information that scientists do not generally have (e.g., an exhaustive set of hypotheses), while lacking slots within which to include considerations to which scientists regularly appeal (e.g., error probabilities). Building on my co-symposiasts contributions, I suggest some directions in which a (...) new and more adequate philosophy of evidence can move. (shrink)

Verification and validation of numerical models of natural systems is impossible. This is because natural systems are never closed and because model results are always nonunique. Models can be confirmed by the demonstration of agreement between observation and prediction, but confirmation is inherently partial. Complete confirmation is logically precluded by the fallacy of affirming the consequent and by incomplete access to natural phenomena. Models can only be evaluated in relative terms, and their predictive value is always open to question. The (...) primary value of models is heuristic. (shrink)

In its reconstruction of scientific practice, philosophy of science has traditionally placed scientific theories in a central role, and has reduced the problem of mediating between theories and the world to formal considerations. Many applications of scientific theories, however, involve complex mathematical models whose constitutive equations are analytically unsolvable. The study of these applications often consists in developing representations of the underlying physics on a computer, and using the techniques of computer simulation in order to learn about the behavior of (...) these systems. In many instances, these computer simulations are not simple number-crunching techniques. They involve a complex chain of inferences that serve to transform theoretical structures into specific concrete knowledge of physical systems. At the heart of this chain of inferences is the process of building what I call a hierarchy of models. This hierarchy includes a mechanical model, a dynamical model, ad hoc models , a computational model, and finally, a model of the phenomena. ;I argue that this process of transformation is also a process of knowledge creation, and that it has its own epistemology. It is an epistemology that has been ignored by most philosophy of science, which has traditionally concerned itself with the justification of theories, not with their application. I also argue that the complex and motley nature of this epistemology suggests that the end results of simulations often do not bear a simple, straightforward relation to the theories from which they derive. Accordingly, I urge philosophers of science to examine more carefully the process of 'theory articulation.' Theory articulation is a relatively neglected aspect of scientific practice, but it plays a role that is often as crucial, as complex, and as creative as experiment. Finally, I examine in detail the last model in the hierarchy, the model of the phenomena. I argue that these models provide understanding of the systems they model. The character of the understanding they provide, however, is not well accounted for in the philosophical literature on scientific explanation. (shrink)