Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:19:13.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Robust! Handle with Care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Wybo Houkes  and
Krist Vaesen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Michael Weisberg has argued that robustness analysis is useful in evaluating both scientific models and their implications and that robustness analysis comes in three types that share their form and aim. We argue for three cautionary claims regarding Weisberg's reconstruction: (1) robustness analysis may be of limited or no value in evaluating models and their implications; (2) the unificatory reconstruction conceals that the three types of robustness differ in form and role; (3) there is no confluence of types of robustness. We illustrate our central first claim with a case study: the application of Lotka-Volterra models to technology diffusion.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , July 2012 , pp. 345 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of 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.)

Footnotes

†

Research by Wybo Houkes and by Krist Vaesen was made possible by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). An earlier version of this article was presented at ECAP7, Milan, September 2011. We would like to thank, with the usual disclaimer, two anonymous referees for their helpful comments.

References

Bass, Frank M. 1969. “A New Product Growth Model for Consumer Durables.” Management Science 15:215–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boumans, Marcel. 1999. “Built-in Justification.” In Models as Mediators, ed. Morgan, Mary S. and Morrison, Margaret, 66–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Christopher J. 1993. “A Theory of Technological Progress.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 44:161–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, J. C., and Pry, R. H.. 1971. “A Simple Substitution Model of Technological Change.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 3:75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forber, Patrick. 2010. “Confirmation and Explanations How Possible.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41:32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, Malcolm, and Sober, Elliott. 1994. “How to Tell When Simpler, More Unified, or Less Ad Hoc Theories Will Provide More Accurate Predictions.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45:1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, Joseph. 2001. “Cultural Transmission and the Diffusion of Innovations.” American Anthropology 103:992–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kieseppä, I. A. 2001. “Statistical Model Selection Criteria and the Philosophical Problem of Underdetermination.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52:761–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuorikoski, Jaakko, Lehtinen, Aki, and Marchionni, Caterina. 2010. “Economic Modelling as Robustness Analysis.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61:541–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levins, Richard. 1966. “The Strategy of Model Building in Population Biology.” American Scientist 54:421–31.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Elizabeth A. 2010. “Confirmation and Robustness of Climate Models.” Philosophy of Science 77:971–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meade, N., and Islam, T.. 1998. “Technological Forecasting—Model Selection, Model Stability and Combining Models.” Management Science 44:1115–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelfelder, R. A., and Morrin, M.. 2005. “Overview of New Product Sales Forecasting Models.” In Intellectual Property, ed. Smith, G. V. and Parr, R. L., 817–28. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Morris, Steven A., and Pratt, David. 2003. “Analysis of the Lotka-Volterra Competition Equations as a Technological Substitution Model.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 70:103–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orzack, Steven H., and Sober, Elliott. 1993. “A Critical Assessment of Levins's ‘The Strategy of Model Building in Population Biology’ (1966).” Quarterly Review of Biology 68:533–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, Alan L., Roper, A. Thomas, Mason, Thomas W., Rossini, Frederick A., and Banks, Jerry. 1991. Forecasting and Management of Technology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Saviotti, P. P., and Mani, G. S.. 1995. “Competition, Variety and Technological Evolution.” Journal of Evolutionary Economics 5:369–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, Michael. 2006. “Robustness Analysis.” Philosophy of Science 73:730–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, Michael. 2007. “Who Is a Modeler?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58:207–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, Michael, and Reisman, Kenneth. 2008. “The Robust Volterra Principle.” Philosophy of Science 75:106–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. 1981. “Robustness, Reliability, and Overdetermination.” In Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences, ed. Brewer, M. and Collins, B., 124–63. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Woodward, Jim. 2006. “Some Varieties of Robustness.” Journal of Economic Methodology 13:219–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar