How do philosophers of science make use of historical case studies? Are their accounts of historical cases purpose-built and lacking in evidential strength as a result of putting forth and discussing philosophical positions? We will study these questions through the examination of three different philosophical case studies. All of them focus on modeling and on Vito Volterra, contrasting his work to that of other theoreticians. We argue that the worries concerning the evidential role of historical case studies in (...) philosophy are partially unfounded, and the evidential and hermeneutical roles of case studies need not be played against each other. In philosophy of science, case studies are often tied to conceptual and theoretical analysis and development, rendering their evidential and theoretic/hermeneutic roles intertwined. Moreover, the problems of resituating or generalizing local knowledge are not specific to philosophy of science but commonplace in many scientific practices—which show similarities to the actual use of historical case studies by philosophers of science. (shrink)

Nel corso del Novecento l’uso dei modelli matematici, che si era già rivelato così utile in fisica e ingegneria, è stato introdotto, talvolta con difficoltà non trascurabili, anche in discipline tradizionalmente considerate poco adatte ad un simile approccio, quali l’economia, la sociologia, la biologia. Un percorso che inizia prendendo a prestito molte delle idee e dei modelli della fisica, tanto che nel discorso inaugurale dell’anno accademico 1901-1902 all’Università di Roma il grande fisico matematico Vito Volterra (1860- 1940) pronunciava (...) le seguenti parole: «è intorno a quelle scienze nelle quali le matematiche solo da poco tempo hanno tentato d’introdursi, le scienze biologiche e sociali, che è più intensa la curiosità, giacché è forte il desiderio di assicurarsi se i metodi classici, i quali hanno dato così grandi risultati nelle scienze meccanico-fisiche, sono suscettibili di essere trasportati con pari successo nei nuovi ed inesplorati campi che si dischiudono loro dinanzi». In effetti l’economia arriverà, nel corso della prima metà del secolo, a un’elegante formulazione assiomatico-deduttiva della teoria dell’equilibrio economico, con l’utilizzo di metodi matematici eleganti e sofisticati. Ma le ipotesi di base, che coinvolgono concetti legati alle scelte degli individui influenzate dal loro livello di razionalità, influenzate da componenti psicologiche e interazioni sociali, condizionano fortemente i risultati ottenuti, e tuttora molti ritengono che il fatto che i metodi matematici si siano rivelati così utili in fisica non implica che lo siano anche per l’economia e le scienze sociali. La formalizzazione sempre più astratta di tali modelli, insieme alla loro difficoltà a spiegare e prevedere alcuni fenomeni economici e sociali osservati, ha portato a frequenti polemiche sulla reale opportunità di trasformare le discipline sociali in teorie matematiche, con strumenti che talvolta sembrano impiegati come fine a se stessi. In questo articolo, dopo aver brevemente delineato la storia della progressiva matematizzazione dell’economia, ci si concentrerà soprattutto sull’utilizzo in economia dei modelli dinamici non lineari, anche questi sviluppati inizialmente in fisica. Si tratta di modelli deterministici utilizzati per prevedere, ed eventualmente controllare, l’evoluzione temporale di sistemi reali. Basati su equazioni di evoluzione, espresse mediante equazioni differenziali o alle differenze a seconda che si consideri il tempo continuo o discreto, il loro studio qualitativo permette di ottenere informazioni sul tipo di comportamento che emergerà nel lungo periodo, e di come questo è influenzato dai principali parametri. La scoperta che modelli dinamici non lineari (che sono la regola nei sistemi sociali, caratterizzati da interazioni e meccanismi di feed-back) possono esibire comportamenti denotati col termine di caos deterministico per la proprietà di amplificare in modo difficilmente prevedibile perturbazioni arbitrariamente piccole (la cosiddetta sensitività rispetto alle condizioni iniziali, o “effetto farfalla”) ha suscitato un certo imbarazzo e nel contempo creato nuove possibilità. L’imbarazzo è dovuto al fatto che, come descriveremo meglio in seguito, la presenza di caos deterministico rende insostenibile l’ipotesi di agente economico razionale, ovvero capace di prevedere correttamente. Le nuove possibilità sono legate al fatto che quei sistemi economici e sociali caratterizzati da fluttuazioni in apparenza casuali potrebbero essere governati da leggi del moto deterministiche (anche se non lineari). In ogni caso, gli studi sui sistemi dinamici non lineari hanno portato a distinguere fra la rappresentazione matematica deterministica e la prevedibilità. L’attuale crisi economica ha senz’altro contribuito a riaccendere il dibattito sul modo di studiare i sistemi economici e sociali e la capacità di spiegare e prevedere. Le scienze sociali, e in particolare l’economia, sono davvero una scienza? Come può una scienza non prevedere e non accorgersi di quello che sta succedendo? Si tratta, come vedremo nel seguito, di domande ricorrenti, e anche in questa occasione qualcuno ha detto che, inseguendo i formalismi matematici, si sta perdendo di vista la realtà, mentre altri sostengono che il problema sta negli specifici formalismi adottati, che quelli usati sono superati, legati ad una matematica “vecchia”, magari mutuata in modo acritico da altre discipline. La speranza è allora che la crisi economica comporti un cambio di paradigma anche nella modellizzazione matematica. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Is there something specific about modelling that distinguishes it from many other theoretical endeavours? We consider Michael Weisberg’s thesis that modelling is a form of indirect representation through a close examination of the historical roots of the Lotka–Volterra model. While Weisberg discusses only Volterra’s work, we also study Lotka’s very different design of the Lotka–Volterra model. We will argue that while there are elements of indirect representation in both Volterra’s and Lotka’s modelling approaches, they are (...) largely due to two other features of contemporary model construction processes that Weisberg does not explicitly consider: the methods-drivenness and outcome-orientedness of modelling. 1Introduction 2Modelling as Indirect Representation 3The Design of the Lotka–Volterra Model by Volterra 3.1Volterra’s method of hypothesis 3.2The construction of the Lotka–Volterra model by Volterra 4The Design of the Lotka–Volterra Model by Lotka 4.1Physical biology according to Lotka 4.2Lotka’s systems approach and the Lotka–Volterra model 5Philosophical Discussion: Strategies and Tools of Modelling 5.1Volterra’s path from the method of isolation to the method of hypothesis 5.2The template-based approach of Lotka 5.3Modelling: methods-driven and outcome-oriented 6Conclusion. (shrink)

An Editorial for issue 128.1 of the Expository Times.

A finer-grained delineation of a given explanandum reveals a nexus of closely related causal and non- causal explanations, complementing one another in ways that yield further explanatory traction on the phenomenon in question. By taking a narrower construal of what counts as a causal explanation, a new class of distinctively mathematical explanations pops into focus; Lange’s characterization of distinctively mathematical explanations can be extended to cover these. This new class of distinctively mathematical explanations is illustrated with the Lotka-Volterra equations. (...) There are at least two distinct ways those equations might hold of a system, one of which yields straightforwardly causal explanations, but the other of which yields explanations that are distinctively mathematical in terms of nomological strength. In the first, one first picks out a system or class of systems, finds that the equations hold in a causal -explanatory way; in the second, one starts with the equations and explanations that must apply to any system of which the equations hold, and only then turns to the world to see of what, if any, systems it does in fact hold. Using this new way in which a model might hold of a system, I highlight four specific avenues by which causal and non- causal explanations can complement one another. (shrink)

Many biological investigations are organized around a small group of species, often referred to as ‘model organisms’, such as the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. The terms ‘model’ and ‘modelling’ also occur in biology in association with mathematical and mechanistic theorizing, as in the Lotka–Volterra model of predator-prey dynamics. What is the relation between theoretical models and model organisms? Are these models in the same sense? We offer an account on which the two practices are shown to have different epistemic (...) characters. Theoretical modelling is grounded in explicit and known analogies between model and target. By contrast, inferences from model organisms are empirical extrapolations. Often such extrapolation is based on shared ancestry, sometimes in conjunction with other empirical information. One implication is that such inferences are unique to biology, whereas theoretical models are common across many disciplines. We close by discussing the diversity of uses to which model organisms are put, suggesting how these relate to our overall account. 1 Introduction2 Volterra and Theoretical Modelling3 Drosophila as a Model Organism4 Generalizing from Work on Model Organisms5 Phylogenetic Inference and Model Organisms6 Further Roles of Model Organisms6.1 Preparative experimentation6.2 Model organisms as paradigms6.3 Model organisms as theoretical models6.4 Inspiration for engineers6.5 Anchoring a research community7 Conclusion. (shrink)

Michael Weisberg has argued that robustness analysis is useful in evaluating both scientific models and their implications and that robustness analysis comes in three types that share their form and aim. We argue for three cautionary claims regarding Weisberg's reconstruction: robustness analysis may be of limited or no value in evaluating models and their implications; the unificatory reconstruction conceals that the three types of robustness differ in form and role; there is no confluence of types of robustness. We illustrate our (...) central first claim with a case study: the application of Lotka-Volterra models to technology diffusion. (shrink)

In this paper, with reference to Vito Acconci’s Following Piece (1969) and Sophie Calle’s Take care of yourself (2007), I show that some works of conceptual art rely on exemplification to convey ideas, and I defend the following claims about those works. In the first place, I argue that the kinds of events and of objects they present us with are relevant for appreciating the views the works convey. In the second place, siding with Elisabeth Schellekens (2007) and Peter (...) Goldie (2007), I argue, contra James Young (2001), that those artworks can yield experiential knowledge. In the third place, I argue that those artworks also possess probatory value. Finally, I maintain that those artworks can be valuable instruments for the education of the emotions. (shrink)

Although Fuzzy logic and Fuzzy Mathematics is a widespread subject and there is a vast literature about it, yet the use of Fuzzy issues like Fuzzy sets and Fuzzy numbers was relatively rare in time concept. This could be seen in the Fuzzy time series. In addition, some attempts are done in fuzzing Turing Machines but seemingly there is no need to fuzzy time. Throughout this article, we try to change this picture and show why it is helpful to consider (...) the instants of time as Fuzzy numbers. In physics, though there are revolutionary ideas on the time concept like B theories in contrast to A theory also about central concepts like space, momentum… it is a long time that these concepts are changed, but time is considered classically in all well-known and established physics theories. Seemingly, we stick to the classical time concept in all fields of science and we have a vast inertia to change it. Our goal in this article is to provide some bases why it is rational and reasonable to change and modify this picture. Here, the central point is the modified version of “Unexpected Hanging” paradox as it is described in "Is classical Mathematics appropriate for theory of Computation".This modified version leads us to a contradiction and based on that it is presented there why some problems in Theory of Computation are not solved yet. To resolve the difficulties arising there, we have two choices. Either “choosing” a new type of Logic like “Para-consistent Logic” to tolerate contradiction or changing and improving the time concept and consequently to modify the “Turing Computational Model”. Throughout this paper, we select the second way for benefiting from saving some aspects of Classical Logic. In chapter 2, by applying quantum Mechanics and Schrodinger equation we compute the associated fuzzy number to time. (shrink)

In a (2016) paper in this journal, I defuse allegations that theoretical ecological research is problematic because it relies on teleological metaphysical assumptions. Mark Sagoff offers a formal reply. In it, he concedes that I succeeded in establishing that ecologists abandoned robust teleological views long ago and that they use teleological characterizations as metaphors that aid in developing mechanistic explanations of ecological phenomena. Yet, he contends that I did not give enduring criticisms of theoretical ecology a fair shake in my (...) paper. He says this is because enduring criticisms center on concerns about the nature of ecological networks and forces, the instrumentality of ecological laws and theoretical models, and the relation between theoretical and empirical methods in ecology that that paper does not broach. Below I set apart the distinct criticisms Sagoff presents in his commentary and respond to each in turn. (shrink)