In a recent series of papers, Roman Frigg, Leonard Smith, and others have developed a general epistemological argument designed to cast doubt on the capacity of a broad range of models to generate “decision relevant predictions. ” According to these authors, the basic reason for doubt is that many
non-linear models are subject to what is deemed the “hawkmoth effect.” In the hawkmoth effect, small structural differences between the predictive model and the ‘true’ system can lead to “fundamentally misleading” predictions. They
suggest that the “burden of proof ” falls on the modelers, who must show that the ‘true’ systems have those desirable structural features which make their models stable under these perturbations. As a way of bringing out some concerns about the generality of this epistemological challenge, in this paper we
will consider the extent to which the hawkmoth effect should undermine confidence in the centerpiece decision relevant predictions generated in the most recent IPCC report.
Presented at the Knowledge and Models in Climate Science: Philosophical, Historical & Scientific Perspectives Conference at the Rotman Institute of Philosophy, Western University
Missing the Forest for the Fish
Eric Winsberg, The University of South Florida, Philosophy Department
October 24-26, 2014
Visit the Rotman website for more information on applications, events, project descriptions and openings. [ Ссылка ]
Follow The Rotman Institute on Twitter: [ Ссылка ]
Like The Rotman Institute on Facebook: [ Ссылка ]
Subscribe to our channel: [ Ссылка ]
