Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Modeling in Philosophy of Science

By Stephan Hartmann


Models are a principle instrument of modern science. They are built, applied, tested, compared, revised and interpreted in an expansive scientific literature. Throughout this paper, I will argue that models are also a valuable tool for the philosopher of science. In particular, I will discuss how the methodology of Bayesian Networks can elucidate two central problems in the philosophy of science. The first thesis I will explore is the variety-of-evidence thesis, which argues that the more varied the supporting evidence, the greater the degree of confirmation for a given hypothesis. However, when investigated using Bayesian methodology, this thesis turns out not to be sacrosanct. In fact, under certain conditions, a hypothesis receives more confirmation from evidence that is obtained from one rather than more instruments, and from evidence that confirms one rather than more testable consequences of the hypothesis. The second challenge that I will investigate is scientific theory change. This application highlights a different virtue of modeling methodology. In particular, I will argue that Bayesian modeling illustrates how two seemingly unrelated aspects of theory change, namely the (Kuhnian) stability of (normal) science and the ability of anomalies to over turn that stability and lead to theory change, are in fact united by a single underlying principle, in this case, coherence. In the end, I will argue that these two examples bring out some metatheoretical reflections regarding the following questions: What are the differences between modeling in science and modeling in philosophy? What is the scope of the modeling method in philosophy? And what does this imply for our understanding of Bayesianism?Articl

Topics: PHI
Year: 2008
OAI identifier:
Provided by: SAS-SPACE

Suggested articles


  1. (1960). A Comparison of the Meaning and Uses of Models doi
  2. (1996). Anomalies and the Revision of Theory-Nets. Notes on the Advance of Mercury’s Perihelion.
  3. (1992). Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory.
  4. (2004). Bayesian Epistemology.
  5. (1979). Bayesian Personalism, the Methodology of Research Programmes, and Duhem’s Problem,
  6. (2000). Causation, Prediction, and Search. doi
  7. (1999). Choice and Chance: An Introduction to Inductive Logic.
  8. (2001). Effective Field Theories, Reduction and Scientific Explanation,
  9. (1996). Evolution and the Social Contract. Cambridge:
  10. (1988). Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach.
  11. (2000). Kuhn, Bayes and “Theory-Choice”: How Revolutionary is Kuhn’s Account of Theoretical Change? In:
  12. (1988). Local computations with probabilties on graphical structures and their application to expert systems.
  13. (1970). Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research? In: Lakatos and Musgrave
  14. (1999). Models as Mediators. Cambridge:
  15. (2005). Models in Science. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring
  16. (1962). Models of Data, doi
  17. (1970). Normal Science and its Dangers. In: Lakatos and Musgrave
  18. (2005). On Coherent Sets and the Transmission of Confirmation.
  19. (2002). On Correspondence,
  20. (1988). Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference.
  21. (1990). Rationality and Objectivity in Science, or Tom Kuhn Meets Tom Bayes.
  22. (2002). Representation and Invariance of Scientific Structures.
  23. (2006). Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach.
  24. (2003). Solving the Riddle of Coherence,
  25. (2005). Warped Passages: Unraveling the Universe’s Hidden Dimensions.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.