Abstract
AbstractScientific results are often presented as ‘surprising’ as if that is a good thing. Is it? And if so, why? What is the value of surprise in science? Discussions of surprise in science have been limited, but surprise has been used as a way of defending the epistemic privilege of experiments over simulations. The argument is that while experiments can ‘confound’, simulations can merely surprise (Morgan, 2005). Our aim in this paper is to show that the discussion of surprise can be usefully extended to thought experiments and theoretical derivations. We argue that in focusing on these features of scientific practice, we can see that the surprise-confoundment distinction does not fully capture surprise in science. We set out how thought experiments and theoretical derivations can bring about surprises that can be disruptive in a productive way, and we end by exploring how this links with their future fertility.
Funder
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference60 articles.
1. Arcangeli, M. (2018). The hidden links between real, thought and numerical experiments. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 17, 3–21.
2. Arthur, R. (1999). On thought experiments as a priori science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 13, 215–229.
3. Aston, F. (1922). Isotopes. London: Arnold.
4. Ball, P. (2020). Behind the screens of AlphaFold. Chemistry World 9th December. https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/behind-the-screens-of-alphafold/4012867.article.
5. Bedessem, B., & Ruphy, S. (2019). Scientific autonomy and the unpredictability of scientific inquiry: The unexpected might not be where you would expect. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 73, 1–7.
Cited by
17 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