Deidealization: No Easy Reversals

Deidealization as a topic in its own right has attracted remarkably little philosophical interest despite the extensive literature on idealization. One reason for this is the often implicit assumption that idealization and deidealization are, potentially at least, reversible processes. We question this assumption by analyzing the challenges of deidealization within a menu of four broad categories: deidealizing as recomposing, deidealizing as reformulating, deidealizing as concretizing, and deidealizing as situating. On closer inspection, models turn out much more inflexible than the reversal thesis would have us believe, and deidealization emerges as a creative part of modeling.

[1]  Collin Rice,et al.  Models Don’t Decompose That Way: A Holistic View of Idealized Models , 2019, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[2]  Steven R. Clarke.  Idealization , 2018, Metaphysics and the Disunity of Scientific Knowledge.

[3]  Arnon Levy.  Idealization and abstraction: refining the distinction , 2018, Synthese.

[4]  Tarja Knuuttila,et al.  Imagination extended and embedded: artifactual versus fictional accounts of models , 2017, Synthese.

[5]  Andrea Loettgers,et al.  Model templates within and between disciplines: from magnets to gases – and socio-economic systems , 2016, European Journal for Philosophy of Science.

[6]  M. Strevens.  How Idealizations Provide Understanding , 2016 .

[7]  Terumi Miyake.  Reference Models: Using Models to Turn Data into Evidence , 2015, Philosophy of Science.

[8]  Tarja Knuuttila,et al.  Magnets, Spins, and Neurons: The Dissemination of Model Templates Across Disciplines , 2014 .

[9]  Robert W. Batterman,et al.  Minimal Model Explanations , 2014, Philosophy of Science.

[10]  William Bechtel,et al.  Abstraction and the Organization of Mechanisms , 2013, Philosophy of Science.

[11]  Nancy Cartwright.  Presidential Address: Will This Policy Work for You? Predicting Effectiveness Better: How Philosophy Helps , 2012, Philosophy of Science.

[12]  Ekaterina Svetlova.  De-idealization by commentary: the case of financial valuation models , 2012, Synthese.

[13]  Jay Odenbaugh,et al.  Buyer beware: robustness analyses in economics and biology , 2011 .

[14]  Tarja Knuuttila,et al.  Modelling and representing: An artefactual approach to model-based representation , 2011 .

[15]  Marion Vorms,et al.  Representing with imaginary models: formats matter , 2011 .

[16]  J. Reiss.  Error in economics: the methodology of evidence-based economics , 2010 .

[17]  Margaret Morrison,et al.  Models, measurement and computer simulation: the changing face of experimentation , 2009 .

[18]  Peter Godfrey-Smith,et al.  Abstractions, Idealizations, and Evolutionary Biology , 2009 .

[19]  Robert W. Batterman,et al.  Idealization and modeling , 2009, Synthese.

[20]  M. S. Morgan,et al.  Models and Modelling in Economics , 2008 .

[21]  M. Strevens.  Depth: An Account of Scientific Explanation , 2008 .

[22]  Nancy J. Nersessian,et al.  Creating Scientific Concepts , 2008 .

[23]  Michael Weisberg.  Three Kinds of Idealization , 2007 .

[24]  Nancy Cartwright,et al.  Hunting Causes and Using Them: The vanity of rigour in economics: theoretical models and Galilean experiments , 2007 .

[25]  Anna Alexandrova,et al.  Connecting Economic Models to the Real World , 2006 .

[26]  Mary S. Morgan,et al.  Economic Man as Model Man: Ideal Types, Idealization and Caricatures , 2006, Journal of the History of Economic Thought.

[27]  Frank A. Hindriks,et al.  Unobservability, tractability and the battle of assumptions , 2005 .

[28]  Uskali Mäki,et al.  Models are experiments, experiments are models , 2005 .

[29]  Mary S. Morgan,et al.  Experiments versus models: New phenomena, inference and surprise , 2005 .

[30]  Martin R. Jones,et al.  IDEALIZATION AND ABSTRACTION: A FRAMEWORK , 2005 .

[31]  Marcel Boumans,et al.  How economists model the world into numbers , 2004 .

[32]  Paul Humphreys,et al.  Extending Ourselves: Computational Science, Empiricism, and Scientific Method , 2004 .

[33]  Elliott Sober,et al.  Cartwright On Explanation And Idealization , 2002 .

[34]  Robert W. Batterman,et al.  Multiple Realizability and Universality , 2000, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[35]  Mary S. Morgan,et al.  Experiments without material intervention: Model experiments, virtual experiments and virtually experiments , 2000 .

[36]  Marcel Boumans,et al.  Built-In Justification , 1999 .

[37]  Margaret Morrison,et al.  Models as Mediating Instruments , 1999 .

[38]  Marcel Boumans,et al.  Representation and stability in testing and measuring rational expectations , 1999 .

[39]  J. Cohen.  Utility: A Real Thing B A Study of Utility's Ontological Status. , 1997 .

[40]  Srikanth Sastry,et al.  Physics and chance. Philosophical issues in the foundations of statistical mechanics , 1995 .

[41]  D. Hausman.  Essays on philosophy and economic methodology: Supply and demand explanations and their ceteris paribus clauses , 1992 .

[42]  Mary S. Morgan,et al.  The stamping out of process analysis in econometrics , 1991 .

[43]  Nancy Cartwright,et al.  Capacities and abstractions , 1989 .

[44]  Marx W. Wartofsky,et al.  Conceptual foundations of scientific thought , 1968 .

[45]  Howard Raiffa,et al.  Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey. , 1958 .

[46]  F. Knight.  The economic nature of the firm: From Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit , 2009 .