Idealization, scientific realism, and the improvement model of confirmation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23756/sp.v8i2.555Keywords:
scientific realism, idealization, theory confirmation, bootstrappingAbstract
That many of our most successful scientific theories involve one or more idealizations poses a challenge to traditional models of theory confirmation. One popular response amongst scientific realists is the “improvement model of confirmation”: if tightening up one or more of the idealizations leads to greater predictive accuracy, then this supports the belief that the theory’s inaccuracy is a result of its idealizations and not because it is wrong. In this article I argue that the improvement model is deeply flawed and that therefore idealizations continue to undermine “success-to-truth” arguments for scientific realism.
Downloads
References
Boyd, R. 1983. "On the Current Status of the Issue of Scientific Realism." Erkenntnis 19: 45-90.
Cartwright, N. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Derden, J. 2003. "A Different Conception of Scientific Realism: The Case of the Missing Explandum." The Journal of Philosophy 100 (5): 243-267.
Fodor, J. 1991. "You can Fool Some of The People All of The Time, Everything Else being Equal: Hedged Laws and Psychological Explanations." Mind 100 (1): 19-34.
French, S, and J Ladyman. 1998. "Semantic Perspective on Idealization in Quantum Physics." In Idealization IX: Idealization in Contemporary Physics, by N Shanks, 51-73. Atlanta: Rodopi.
Glymour, C. 1980. Theory and Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Godfrey-Smith, P. 2009. "Abstractions, Idealizations, and Evolutionary Biology." In Mapping the Future of Biology: Evolving Concepts and Theories, by A Barberousse, M Morange and T Pradeu, 47-56. New York: Springer.
Hegselmann, R, U Mueller, and K Troitzsch. 1996. Modelling and Simulation in the Social Sciences from the Philosophy of Science Point of View. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hilpenen, R. 1976. "Approximate Truth and Truthlikeness." In Formal Methods in the Methodology of Empirical Sciences, by M Przełęcki, K Szaniawski, R Wójcicki and G Malinowski, 19-42. Dordrecht: Springer.
Laymon, R. 1985. "Cartwright and the Lying Laws of Physics." The Journal of Philosophy 86 (7): 353-372.
Laymon, R. 1995. "Experimentation and the Legitimacy of Idealization." Philosophical Studies 77 (2-3): 353-375.
Laymon, R. 1980. "Idealization, Explanation, and Confirmation." PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1: 336-350.
Laymon, R. 1985. "Idealizations and the Testing of Theories by Experimentation." In Observation, Experiment, and Hypothesis in Modern Physical Science, by P Achinstein and O Hannaway, 147-173. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Liu, C. 1999. "Approximation, Idealization and the Laws of Nature." Synthese 118 (2): 229-256.
McMullin, E. 1985. "Galilean Idealization." Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 16 (3): 247-273.
Niiniluoto, I. 1987. Truthlikeness. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Niiniluoto, I. 1998. "Verisimilitude: The Third Period." British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (1): 1-29.
Nowak, L. 1980. The Structure of Idealization. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Oddie, G. 1986. Likeness to Truth. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Popper, K. 1972. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Psillos, S. 1999. Scientific Realims: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.
Putnam, H. 1975. Mathematics, Matter and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rolleri, J. 2013. "Idealized Laws and Explanatory Models." Teorema 32 (2): 5-27.
Shanks, N. 1998. Idealization IX: Idealization in Contemporary Physics. Atlanta: Rodopi.
Sober, E. 1993. The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tichy, P. 1976. "Verisimilitude Redefined." British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 27 (1): 25–42.
Tichy, P. 1978. "Verisimilitude Revisited." Synthese 38 (2): 175–196.
Weisberg, M. 2007. "Three Kinds of Idealization." The Journal of Philosophy 104 (12): 639-659.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. The journal is committed to real and immediate open access for academic work. All of the journal articles are free to access immediately from the date of publication. There are no charge for readers to download articles and reviews for their own scholarly use. Benefits of open access for authors, include:
- Free access for all users worldwide
- Increased visibility and readership
- Rapid publication
- No spatial constraints
- Authors can share their research papers on their personal web-pages (i.e. ResearchGate, etc.)
Copyright and Licensing Terms
SCIENCE & PHILOSOPHY publishes open access articles under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) License. The Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) allows users to copy, distribute and transmit an article, adapt the article and make commercial use of the article. The CC BY license permits commercial and non-commercial re-use of an open-access article, as long as the author is properly attributed. Copyright on any research article published by SCIENCE & PHILOSOPHY is retained by the author(s). Authors grant SCIENCE & PHILOSOPHY a license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher. Authors also grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its original authors, citation details and publisher are identified.
For further information visit: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. The following logo will appear in any paper that will be published from the volume number 31/2016 onwards:
