Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that False models serve a legitimate epistemic function in science
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Epistemic legitimacy requires that a representation reliably tracks truth; a model known to be false cannot reliably track truth.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If false models produce true conclusions, this success is accidental rather than epistemically grounded, constituting luck rather than knowledge.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Epistemic luck, as argued by Pritchard, is incompatible with genuine epistemic function even when true beliefs result.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Van Fraassen's constructive empiricism holds that science aims at empirical adequacy, not truth; false models are thus not legitimate but merely tolerated instrumentally.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A representation that is instrumentally useful but known false conflates pragmatic value with epistemic value, collapsing a distinction essential to scientific realism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
False models can be used as means to arrive at true theories
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.