, Volume 180, Issue 1, pp 65–76 | Cite as

Science without (parametric) models: the case of bootstrap resampling

  • Jan SprengerEmail author
Open Access


Scientific and statistical inferences build heavily on explicit, parametric models, and often with good reasons. However, the limited scope of parametric models and the increasing complexity of the studied systems in modern science raise the risk of model misspecification. Therefore, I examine alternative, data-based inference techniques, such as bootstrap resampling. I argue that their neglect in the philosophical literature is unjustified: they suit some contexts of inquiry much better and use a more direct approach to scientific inference. Moreover, they make more parsimonious assumptions and often replace theoretical understanding and knowledge about mechanisms by careful experimental design. Thus, it is worthwhile to study in detail how nonparametric models serve as inferential engines in science.


Models Data Inductive inference Nonparametric statistics Bootstrap resampling 



I would like to thank the audience at the Models and Simulations 2 conference in Tilburg and the London-Paris-Tilburg Workshop in Philosophy of Science for their helpful criticisms and suggestions. In particular, I would like to thank Roman Frigg, Stephan Hartmann, Kevin Hoover, Jan-Willem Romeijn, Jonah Schupbach, Leonard Smith and Michael Weisberg as well as two anonymous referees of this journal for their detailed and stimulating feedback.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.


  1. Berger J.O., Sellke T. (1987) Testing a point null hypothesis: The irreconcilability of P values and evidence. Journal of the American Statistical Association 82: 112–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bickel P.J., Freedman D.A. (1981) Some asymptotic theory for the bootstrap. Annals of Statistics 9: 1196–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burnham K.P., Anderson D.R. (1998) Model selection and inference: a practical information–theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Cox D.R. (2006) Principles of statistical inference. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Demiralp S., Hoover K.D., Perez S.J. (2008) A bootstrap method for identifying and evaluating a structural vector autoregression. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 70: 509–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Efron B. (1979) Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. Annals of Statistics 7: 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Efron B., Tibshirani R. (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Glymour C. (1980) Theory and evidence. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Godfrey–Smith P. (2006) The strategy of model–based science. Biology and Philosophy 21: 725–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hacking I. (1965) Logic of statistical inference. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Humphreys Paul (2004) Extending ourselves: Computational science, empiricism, and scientific method. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Keuzenkamp H.A., Magnus J.R. (1995) On tests and significance in econometrics. Journal of Econometrics 67: 5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mayo D.G. (1996) Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago & LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Mayo D.G., Spanos A. (2004) Methodology in practice: Statistical misspecification testing. Philosophy of Science 71: 1007–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morrison M., Morgan M. (1999) Models as mediating instruments. In: Morgan M., Morrison M. (eds) Models as mediators. Perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 10–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Royall R. (1997) Statistical evidence: A likelihood paradigm. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Rubin D.B. (1981) The bayesian bootstrap. Annals of Statistics 9: 130–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sharma N., Patankar N.A. (2004) Direct numerical simulation of the Brownian motion of particles by using fluctuating hydrodynamic equations. Journal of Computational Physics 201: 466–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Singh K. (1981) On the asymptotic accuracy of Efron’s bootstrap. Annals of Statistics 9: 1187–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Spirtes P., Glymour C., Scheines R. (1993) Causation, prediction, and search. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Sprenger J. (2009) Statistics between inductive logic and empirical science. Journal of Applied Logic 7: 239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Suppes, P. (1969). Models of data. In P. Suppes (Ed.), Studies in the methodology and foundations of science. Selected Papers from 1951 to 1969 (pp. 24–35). Dordrecht: Reidel. Orginally published in Ernest Nagel, P. Suppes & A. Tarski (Eds.), Logic, methodology and philosophy of science: proceedings of the 1960 international congress (pp. 252–261). Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  23. Stainforth D.A., Allen M.R., Tredger E.R., Smith L.A. (2007) Confidence, uncertainty and decision-support relevance in climate predictions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 365: 2145–2161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Volterra V. (1926) Fluctuations in the abundance of a species considered mathematically. Nature 118: 558–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weisberg M. (2007) Who is a modeler? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58: 207–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weisberg, M. (2009). Models of modeling. Unpublished manscript source.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tilburg Center for Logic and Philosophy of ScienceTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations