Model Evaluation: An Adequacy-for-Purpose View

被引:117
作者
Parker, Wendy S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Durham, Dept Philosophy, 50 Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HN, England
基金
欧洲研究理事会;
关键词
CONFIRMATION;
D O I
10.1086/708691
中图分类号
N09 [自然科学史]; B [哲学、宗教];
学科分类号
01 ; 0101 ; 010108 ; 060207 ; 060305 ; 0712 ;
摘要
According to an adequacy-for-purpose view, models should be assessed with respect to their adequacy or fitness for particular purposes. Such a view has been advocated by scientists and philosophers alike. Important details, however, have yet to be spelled out. This article attempts to make progress by addressing three key questions: What does it mean for a model to be adequate-for-purpose? What makes a model adequate-for-purpose? How does assessing a model's adequacy-for-purpose differ from assessing its representational accuracy? In addition, responses are given to some objections that might be raised against an adequacy-for-purpose view.
引用
收藏
页码:457 / 477
页数:21
相关论文
共 43 条
  • [1] Alexander LV, 2014, CLIMATE CHANGE 2013: THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS, P3
  • [2] Adequacy for Purpose: The Best Deal A Model Can Get
    Alexandrova, Anna
    [J]. MODERN SCHOOLMAN, 2010, 87 (3-4): : 295 - 301
  • [3] [Anonymous], THESIS
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2007, Models in Environmental Regulatory Decision Making
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2007, Re-Engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings: Piecewise Approximations to Reality
  • [6] Building confidence in climate model projections: an analysis of inferences from fit
    Baumberger, Christoph
    Knutti, Reto
    Hadorn, Gertrude Hirsch
    [J]. WILEY INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEWS-CLIMATE CHANGE, 2017, 8 (03)
  • [7] Successful visual epistemic representation
    Bolinska, Agnes
    [J]. STUDIES IN HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 2016, 56 : 153 - 160
  • [8] Boon M, 2009, HBK PHILOS SCI, V9, P693, DOI 10.1016/B978-0-444-51667-1.50030-6
  • [9] Caswell H., 1976, Syst Anal Simul Ecol, V4, P313
  • [10] FROM MODELS-AS-FICTIONS TO MODELS-AS-TOOLS
    Currie, Adrian
    [J]. ERGO-AN OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY, 2017, 4 : 759 - 781