Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:10:03.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forging Model/World Relations: Relevance and Reliability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Isabelle Peschard
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relation between models and the world is mediated by experimental procedures generating data that are used as evidence to evaluate the model. Data can serve as empirical evidence, for or against, only if they result from reliable experimental procedures. The aim of this article is to discuss the role of relevance judgments in the evaluation of reliability and to clarify the conditions under which reliability can be a strictly empirical matter. It is argued that reliability is a strictly empirical issue only in the restricted case in which the claim under test/investigation is about a data-generating procedure.

Type
Fictions, Models and Representation
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 79 , Issue 5 , December 2012 , pp. 749 - 760
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

†

The author wishes to acknowledge support for this research by National Science Foundation grant SES-1026183.

References

Bogen, James, and Woodward, James. 2003. “Evading the IRS.” Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 86 (1): 223–56.Google Scholar
Chirimuuta, Mazviita, and Gold, Ian. 2009. “The Embedded Neuron, the Enactive Field?” In Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Neuroscience, ed. Bickle, John, 200–225. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Colman, Ronald. 1999. “The Cost of Crime in Nova Scotia.” Journal of Business Administration and Policy Analysis, January.Google Scholar
Franklin, Allan. 1989. The Neglect of Experiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Tsung-Dao, and Yang, Chen Ning. 1956. “Questions of Parity Nonconservation in Weak Interactions.” Physical Review 104 (1): 254–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 2006. “Theoretical Pluralism and the Scientific Study of Behavior.” In Scientific Pluralism, ed. Kellert, Stephen H., Longino, Helen H., and Waters, C. Kenneth, 102–31. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Mayo, Deborah. 1996. Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, Deborah. 2000. “Experimental Practice and an Error Statistical Account of Evidence.” Philosophy of Science 67 (Proceedings): S193–S207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, Margaret. 2007. “Where Have All the Theories Gone?” Philosophy of Science 74 (2): 195–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noë, Alva. 2005. Action in Perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Peschard, Isabelle. 2011. “Modeling and Experimenting.” In Models, Simulations and Representation, ed. Humphreys, Paul and Imbert, Cyrille, 42–61. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rooney, Phyllis. 1992. “On Values in Science: Is the Epistemic/Non-epistemic Distinction Useful?” In PSA 1992: Proceedings of the 1992 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1, ed. Hull, David, Forbes, Micky, and Okruhlik, Kathleen, 13–22. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Staley, Kent. 2005. “Agency and Objectivity in the Search for the Top Quark.” In Scientific Evidence: Philosophical Theories and Applications, ed. Achinstein, Peter, 165–84. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Suppes, Patrick. 1962. “Models of Data.” In Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, ed. Nagel, Ernest, Suppes, Patrick, and Tarsi, Alfred, 252–61. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Varela, Francisco, Thompson, Evan, and Rosch, Eleonor. 1991. The Embodied Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, Gregory. 2000. “Error Statistics and Duhem's Problem.” Philosophy of Science 67 (3): 410–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar