True Lies: Realism, Robustness, and Models

Philosophy of Science 78 (5):1177-1188 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this essay, I argue that uneliminated idealizations pose a serious problem for scientific realism. I consider one method for “de-idealizing” models—robustness analysis. However, I argue that unless idealizations are eliminated from an idealized theory and robustness analysis need not do that, scientists are not justified in believing that the theory is true. I consider one example of modeling from the biological sciences that exemplifies the problem.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Confirmation and Robustness of Climate Models.Elisabeth A. Lloyd - 2010 - Philosophy of Science 77 (5):971–984.
Economic Modelling as Robustness Analysis.Jaakko Kuorikoski, Aki Lehtinen & Caterina Marchionni - 2010 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (3):541-567.
Is economics scientific? Is science scientific?S. Phineas Upham - 2005 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 17 (1-2):117-132.
Robustness Analysis.Michael Weisberg - 2006 - Philosophy of Science 73 (5):730-742.
Heidegger and scientific realism.Trish Glazebrook - 2001 - Continental Philosophy Review 34 (4):361-401.
The Robust Volterra Principle.Michael Weisberg & Kenneth Reisman - 2008 - Philosophy of Science 75 (1):106-131.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-01-07

Downloads
145 (#124,435)

6 months
9 (#250,037)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jay Odenbaugh
Lewis & Clark College

References found in this work

Robustness Analysis.Michael Weisberg - 2006 - Philosophy of Science 73 (5):730-742.

Add more references