4.2 Article

State of the Field: Why novel prediction matters

Journal

STUDIES IN HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Volume 44, Issue 4, Pages 580-589

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.04.001

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [1026999]
  2. Divn Of Social and Economic Sciences
  3. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [1026999] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is considerable disagreement about the epistemic value of novel predictive success, i.e. when a scientist predicts an unexpected phenomenon, experiments are conducted, and the prediction proves to be accurate. We survey the field on this question, noting both fully articulated views such as weak and strong predictivism, and more nascent views, such as pluralist reasons for the instrumental value of prediction. By examining the various reasons offered for the value of prediction across a range of inferential contexts (including inferences from data to phenomena, from phenomena to theory, and from theory to framework), we can see that neither weak nor strong predictivism captures all of the reasons for valuing prediction available. A third path is presented, Pluralist Instrumental Predictivism; PIP for short. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available