Abstract
AbstractPhilosophers have debated at length the epistemological status of scientific thought experiments. I contend that the literature on this topic still lacks a common conceptual framework, a lacuna that produces radical disagreement among the participants in this debate. To remedy this problem, I suggest focusing on the distinction between the internal and the external validity of an experiment, which is also crucial for thought experiments. I then develop an account of both kinds of validity in the context of thought experiments. I show that we can naturally conceptualise internal validity in terms of games of make-believe. Then, I argue that external validity is best defined as accurate representation of a target system. Finally, I turn back to the current debate on thought experiments and show that my diarchic account provides a general framework that can be shared by the competing philosophical views, as well as a fruitful guide for their reconciliation.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Philosophy
Reference101 articles.
1. Arcangeli, M. (2010). Imagination in thought experimentation: Sketching a cognitive approach to thought experiments. In L. Magnani, W. Carnielli, & C. Pizzi (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in science and technology (pp. 571–587). Springer.
2. Arcangeli, M. (2018). The hidden links between real, thought and numerical experiments. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 18(1), 3–22.
3. Beck, L., & Jahn, M. (2021). Normative models and their success. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 51(2), 123–150.
4. Berkovitz, L., & Donnerstein, E. (1982). External validity is more than skin deep. American Psychologist, 37(3), 245–57.
5. Bohr, N. (1949). Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-scientist (Vol. 42, pp. 199–242). The Library of Living Philosophers.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献