Abstract
The question is posed whether the concept of tradition can enhance our indepth understanding of scientific modeling and models. We present a progression of uses that the concept has found in the study of science, broadly conceived. From there we take a fresh look at our case study of linear models in judgment and decision making research. We distinguish two traditions in this research area, a ratiomorphic tradition and a paramorphic tradition. We show how the linear regression model was crucial to the inception of these traditions but not to their continuation. Following Galison’s example, we also search out connective areas between the two traditions. These “trading zones” can be found in close proximity to computer and (Monte Carlo) simulations, in particular. Finally, a tradition is also an abstraction, which in the end opens the possibility of using our understanding of modeling to enhance our understanding of the concept of tradition.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Brunswik, E., 1952, The conceptual framework of psychology, in: International Encyclopedia of Unified Science: Vol. 1, No. 10, O. Neurath, R. Carnap, and C. Morris, eds., University of Chicago.
Brunswik, E., 1956, Perception and the Representative Design of Psychological Experiments, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Brunswik, E., 1964, Scope and aspects of the cognitive problem, in: Contemporary Approaches to Cognition: A Symposium Held at the University of Colorado, H. Gruber, R. Jessor, and K.H. Hammond, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp. 5–31.
Danziger, K., 1990, Constructing the Subject: Historical Origins of Psychological Research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Danziger, K., 1997, Naming the Mind: How Psychology Found its Language, Sage, London.
Dawes, R. M., 1979, The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making, American Psychologist 34:571–582.
Dawes, R. M. and Corrigan, B., 1974, Linear models in decision making, Psychological Bulletin 81:95–106.
Doherty, M.E. and Brehmer, B., 1997, The paramorphic representation of clinical judgment: A thirty-year retrospective, in: Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections and Controversies, W.M. Goldstein and R.M. Hogarth, eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 538–551.
Doherty, M.E. and Evans, J.St.B.T., 1996, Editorial, Thinking and Reasoning 2:105–107.
Doherty, M.E. and Kurz, E.M., 1996, Social Judgment Theory, Thinking and Reasoning 2:109–140.
Elias, N., 1984, Über die Zeit [An Essay on Time], Suhrkamp, Frankfurt.
Galison, P., 1987, How Experiments End, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Galison, P., 1997, Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Giere, R. N., 1999, Using models to represent reality, in: Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery, L. Magnani, N.J. Nersessian and P. Thagard, eds., Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 41–57.
Gigerenzer, G. and Goldstein, D.G., 1996, Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality, Psychological Review, 103:650–669.
Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., and Kleinbölting, H., 1991, Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence, Psychological Review 98:506–528.
Gigerenzer, G. and Kurz, E.M., in press, Vicarious functioning reconsidered: A fast and frugal lens model, in: The Essential Brunswik: Beginnings, Explications, Applications, K.R. Hammond and T.R. Stewart, eds., Oxford University Press, New York.
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P., and the ABC Research Group, 1999, Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart, Oxford University Press, New York.
Hammond, K.R., 1955, Probabilistic functioning and the clinical method, Psychological Review 62:255–262.
Hammond, K.R., 1996, Upon reflection, Thinking and Reasoning 2:239–248.
Hoffman, P.J., 1960, The paramorphic representation of clinical judgment, Psychological Bulletin, 57:116–131.
Kuhn, T.S., 1977a, The essential tension: tradition and innovation in scientific research, in: The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 225–239.
Kuhn, T. S., 1977b, Mathematical and experimental traditions in the development of physical science, in: The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 225–239.
Kurz, E.M. and Tweney, R.D., 1998, The practice of mathematics and science: From calculus to the clothesline problem, in: Rational models of cognition, M. Oaksford and N. Chater, eds., Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 415–438.
Nersessian, N.J., 1999, Model-based reasoning in conceptual change, in: Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery, L. Magnani, N.J. Nersessian, and P. Thagard, eds., Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 5–22.
Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., and Johnson, E.J., 1988, Adaptive strategy selection in decision making, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 14:534– 552.
Popper, K.R., 1963, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Rieskamp, J. and Hoffrage, U., 1999, When do people use simple heuristics, and how can we tell?, in G. Gigerenzer, P. Todd, and the ABC Research Group, pp. 141–167.
Tweney, R.D., in press, What happened to the brass and glass? The rise of statistical “instru- ments” in psychology, 1900–1950, in: Festschrift for John Poppelstone and Marion McPherson White.
Woodworth, R., 1938, Experimental Psychology, Holt, New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kurz-Milcke, E., Martignon, L. (2002). Modeling Practices and “Tradition”. In: Magnani, L., Nersessian, N.J. (eds) Model-Based Reasoning. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0605-8_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0605-8_8
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-5154-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-0605-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive