Three decades ago, James Bogen and James Woodward argued against the possibility and usefulness of scientific explanations of data. They developed a picture of scientific reasoning where stable phenomena were identified via data without much input from theory. Rather than explain data, theories ‘save the phenomena’. In contrast, I argue that there are good reasons to explain data, and the practice of science reveals attempts to do so. I demonstrate that algorithms employed to address inverse problems in remote-sensing applications should (...) be understood as attempts to identify phenomena by explaining the data. Thus, this paper furthers understanding of data-to-phenomena reasoning in science, and demonstrates theory may play a more central role in phenomena identification than previously recognized. (shrink)

In a recent paper James Bogen and James Woodward denounce a set of views on confirmation that they collectively brand 'IRS'. The supporters of these views cast confirmation in terms of Inferential Relations between observational and theoretical Sentences. Against 1RS accounts of confirmation, Bogen and Woodward unveil two main objections: (a) inferential relations are not necessary to model confirmation relations since many data are neither in sentential form nor can they be put in such a form and (b) inferential relations (...) are not sufficient to model confirmation relations because the former cannot capture evidentially relevant factors about the detection processes and instruments that generate the data. In this paper I have a two-fold aim: (i) to show that Bogen and Woodward fail to provide compelling grounds for the rejection of IRS models and (ii) to highlight some of the models' neglected merits. (shrink)