Skip to main content
Log in

Robustness analysis disclaimer: please read the manual before use!

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Odenbaugh and Alexandrova (2011) provide a challenging critique of the epistemic benefits of robustness analysis, singling out for particular criticism the account we articulated in Kuorikoski et al. (2010). Odenbaugh and Alexandrova offer two arguments against the confirmatory value of robustness analysis: robust theorems cannot specify causal mechanisms and models are rarely independent in the way required by robustness analysis. We address Odenbaugh and Alexandrova’s criticisms in order to clarify some of our original arguments and to shed further light on the properties of robustness analysis and its epistemic rationale.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. This view is further elaborated in Kuorikoski and Lehtinen (2009).

  2. Other prominent examples are the Modigliani–Miller theorem in the theory of finance and the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem in the theory of international trade.

  3. Wimsatt’s discussion of neutral models captures these features of such ‘false theorems’. Neutral models are neutral in the sense that they provide a ‘null’ baseline situation which is rarely or never actualised; however, they are useful in providing contrasts for models and explanations (Wimsatt 2007, p. 94–132; see also Hindriks 2008).

  4. Indeed Wimsatt (1981, 2007; see also Calcott 2011), who also has argued for the epistemic benefits of robustness, has emphasised this.

  5. Odenbaugh and Alexandrova’s notion of absolute robustness is somewhat ambiguous. The distinction between relative and absolute robustness is introduced by appealing to the difference between many versus all assumptions, but in introducing the term ‘absolute’ they write: ‘The only way to remove this worry is to show that there is some true assumption when conjoined with the substantial core that implies the prediction. Call this the ‘‘absolute’’ robustness analysis.’ (p. 764) If one could attain absolute robustness by replacing each questionable assumption with others that are not necessarily known to be true, then our claim that only reality itself could attain absolute robustness might be false. However, given that they do indeed require that the true assumption is among the tried ones (see also below), we stick to our guns.

  6. Clearly we remain agnostic regarding the validity of the geographical economics’ result.

  7. A similar worry was voiced by Nancy Cartwright regarding economics. She argued that the common economic modelling framework “overconstrains” the modelling results in a detrimental way (Cartwright 2009).

References

  • Alexandrova A (2008) Making models count. Philos Sci 73:383–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexandrova A (2009) When analytic narratives explain. J Philos Hist 3:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calcott B (2011) Wimsatt and the robustness family: review of Wimsatt’s re-engineering philosophy for limited beings. Biol Philos 26:281–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright N (1991) Replicability, reproducibility, and robustness: comments on Harry Collins. Hist Polit Econ 23:143–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright N (2009) If no capacities then no credible worlds. But can models reveal capacities? Erkenntnis 70:45–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forber P (2010) Confirmation and explaining how possible. Stud Hist Philos Sci 41:32–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn FH (1970) Some adjustment problems. Econometrica 38:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hindriks FA (2008) False models as explanatory engines. Philos Soc Sci 38:334–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuorikoski J, Lehtinen A (2009) Incredible worlds, credible results. Erkenntnis 70:119–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuorikoski J, Lehtinen A, Marchionni C (2010) Economic modelling as robustness analysis. Brit J Philos Sci 61:541–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Levins R (1966) The strategy of model building in population biology. Am Sci

  • Odenbaugh J, Alexandrova A (2011) Buyer beware: robustness analyses in economics and biology. Biol Philos 26:757–771

    Google Scholar 

  • Teller P (2001) Twilight of the perfect model model. Erkenntnis 55:393–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg M (2006) Robustness analysis. Philos Sci 73:730–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg M, Reisman K (2008) The robust Volterra principle. Philos Sci 75:106–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt WC (1981) Robustness, reliability and overdetermination. In: Brewer MB, Collins BE (eds) Scientific inquiry and the social sciences. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 124–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt WC (2007) Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was financially supported by the Academy of Finland. Parts of this reply have been presented at the workshop “Economic models: their nature and significance”, University of East Anglia (UK); at a seminar jointly organized by the Department of Economics and the Department of Mathematics, University of Florence, and at the Philosophy of Science seminar, University of Helsinki. We thank the participants in these events for their insightful comments and discussion. We also thank Jani Raerinne and Bradley Turner for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. The usual disclaimers apply.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aki Lehtinen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kuorikoski, J., Lehtinen, A. & Marchionni, C. Robustness analysis disclaimer: please read the manual before use!. Biol Philos 27, 891–902 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-012-9329-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-012-9329-z

Keywords

Navigation