Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T01:46:25.738Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Models, Conceptual and Predictive: A Response to Johnson’s Models-as-Fables

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2021

Keith Dowding Open the ORCID record for Keith Dowding [Opens in a new window]  and
Enzo Lenine Open the ORCID record for Enzo Lenine [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

James Johnson argues that formal models are best conceived as fables which provide lessons about empirical phenomena and the “standard rationale” of testing model predictions fails. Without justifying the “standard rationale” as such, we argue that models produce scientific predictions. These predictions come at different levels or granularity of description and in different forms each bearing some degree of uncertainty, but still give conditions for the existence of political phenomena. Models and their predictions require projection onto the world, and that projection involves interpretation. Tests utilize inference to the best explanation, and it is the conceptual or theoretical aspect of models that make them explanatory. We discuss the extent to which our characterisation of models and their explanatory form versus that of Johnson constitutes a verbal or substantive dispute.

Type
Reflection
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 21 , Issue 1: Special Section: Las Américas , March 2023 , pp. 254 - 263
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainsworth, Peter Mark. 2010. “What Is Ontic Structural Realism?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 41(1): 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2009.11.001 Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., Strauss, Aaron B., and Ting, Michael M.. 2005. “Voting Weights and Formateur Advantages in the Formation of Coalition Governments.” American Journal of Political Science 49(3): 550–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beach, Derek, and Pedersen, Rasmus Brun. 2016. Causal Case Study Methods: Foundations and Guidelines for Comparing, Matching, and Tracing. Ann Abor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becher, Michael, and Christiansen, Flemming Juul. 2015. “Dissolution Threats and Legislative Bargaining.” American Journal of Political Science 59(3): 641–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, Ken. 1992. Fun and Games: A Text on Game Theory. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
Binmore, Ken. 2007. Playing for Real: A Text on Game Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and Lalman, M.. 1992. War and Reason. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 2010. “Models: Parables v Fables.” In Beyond Mimesis and Convention: Representation in Art and Science, ed. Frigg, Roman and Hunter, Matthew C., 19–31. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, David J. 2011. “Verbal Disputes.” Philosophical Review 120(4): 515–66.Google Scholar
Clarke, Kevin A., and Primo, David M.. 2012. A Model Discipline: Political Science and the Logic of Representations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Currie, Adrian. 2018. Rock, Bone and Ruin: An Optimist’s Guide to the Historical Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewan, Torun, and Spirling, Arthur. 2011. “Strategic Opposition and Government Cohesion in Westminster Democracies.” American Political Science Review 105(2): 337–58.Google Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel, and Stevenson, Randy T.. 2000. “Cabinet Terminations and Critical Events.” American Journal of Political Science 94(3): 627–40.Google Scholar
Dowding, Keith. 2016. The Philosophy and Methods of Political Science. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Dowding, Keith. 2021. “Why Forecast? The Value of Correct and Incorrect Election Forecasts.” PS: Political Science and Politics 56(1): 104–06.Google Scholar
Dowding, Keith, and Miller, Charles. 2019. “On Prediction in Political Science.” European Journal of Political Research 58(3): 1003–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyerman, Joe, and Hart, Robert A. Jr. 1996. “An Empirical Test of the Audience Cost Proposition.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 40(4): 597–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. 1958. Fact, Fiction and Forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Guala, Francesco. 2005. The Methodology of Experimental Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedstrom, Peter, and Ylikoski, Petri. 2010. “Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology 36: 49–67.Google Scholar
Johnson, James. 2020. “Models-As-Fables: An Alternative to the Standard Rationale for Using Formal Models in Political Science.” Perspectives on Politics FirstView. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720003473 Google Scholar
Kincaid, Harold. 2008. “Structural Realism and the Social Sciences.” Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association Part II. Philosophy of Science 75(5): 720–31.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul. 1972. “Naming and Necessity.” In Semantics of Natural Language, ed. Davidson, Donald and Harman, Gilbert, 252–355. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Ladyman, James. 2020. “Structural Realism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/structural-realism/).Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Shepsle, Kenneth A.. 1996. Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenine, Enzo. 2019. “International Conflict and Strategic Games: Challenging Conventional Approaches to Modelling in International Relations.” Carta Internacional 14(1): 80–102.Google Scholar
Lenine, Enzo. 2020. “Modelling Coalitions: From Concept Formation to Tailoring Empirical Explanations.” Games 11(4): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Arnon. 2015. “Modeling without Models.” Philosophical Studies 172(6): 781–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, Edward N. 1963. “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 20(2): 130–41.Google Scholar
Mäki, Uskali. 2005. “Models Are Experiments, Experiments Are Models.” Journal of Economic Methodology 12(2): 303–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Stevenson, Randoloph T.. 2001. “Government Formation in Parliamentary Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minhas, Shahryar, Hoff, Peter D., and Ward, Michael D.. 2016. “A New Approach to Analyzing Coevolving Longitudinal Networks in International Relations.” Journal of Peace Research 53(3): 491–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor, Gardner, Roy, and Walker, James. 1994. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Scott E. 2011. Diversity and Complexity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Page, Scott E. 2018. The Model Thinker: What You Need to Know to Make Data Work for You. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Partell, Peter J., and Palmer, Glenn. 1999. “Audience Costs and Interstate Crises: An Empirical Assessment of Fearon’s Model of Dispute Outcomes.” International Studies Quarterly 43(2): 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1972. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. 6th impression (revised). London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Ross, Don. 2008. “Ontic Structural Realism and Economics.” Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association Part II. Philosophy of Science 75(5): 732–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Don. 2014. Philosophy of Economics. Palgrave: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Don. 2019. “Game Theory.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/game-theory/).Google Scholar
Signorino, Curtis S. 1999. “Strategic Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of International Conflict.” American Political Science Review 93(2): 279–97.Google Scholar
Signorino, Curtis S. 2003. “Structure and Uncertainty in Discrete Choice Models.” Political Analysis 11(4): 316–44.Google Scholar
Signorino, Curtis S. 2007. “On Formal Theory and Statistical Methods: A Response to Carrubba, Yuen and Zorn.” Political Analysis 15(4): 483–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Signorino, Curtis S., and Tarar, Ahmer. 2006. “A Unified Theory and Test of Extended Immediate Deterrence.” American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 586–605.Google Scholar
Signorino, Curtis S., and Yilmaz, Kuzey. 2003. “Strategic Misspecification in Regression Models.” American Journal of Political Science 47(3): 551–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 1983. “Equilibrium Explanation.” Philosophical Studies 43(2): 201–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurman, Harold V., and Burton, Elizabeth. 2003. Introductory Oceanography. 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael. 2007. “Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations: An Experimental Approach.” International Organization 61(4): 821–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, T. Camber. 2010. “The Geometry of Security: Modeling Interstate Alliances as Evolving Networks.” Journal of Peace Research 47(6): 697–709.Google Scholar
Warren, T. Camber. 2016. “Modeling the Coevolution of International and Domestic Institutions: Alliances, Democracy, and the Complex Path to Peace.” Journal of Peace Research 53(3): 424–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, James. 2003. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar