Epistemic possibilities in climate science: lessons from some recent research in the context of discovery

IF 1.5 1区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE European Journal for Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2023-11-23 DOI:10.1007/s13194-023-00560-7
Joel Katzav
{"title":"Epistemic possibilities in climate science: lessons from some recent research in the context of discovery","authors":"Joel Katzav","doi":"10.1007/s13194-023-00560-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A number of authors, including me, have argued that the output of our most complex climate models, that is, of global climate models and Earth system models, should be assessed possibilistically. Worries about the viability of doing so have also been expressed. I examine the assessment of the output of relatively simple climate models in the context of discovery and point out that this assessment is of epistemic possibilities. At the same time, I show that the concept of epistemic possibility used in the relevant studies does not fit available analyses of this concept. Moreover, I provide an alternative analysis that does fit the studies and broad climate modelling practices as well as meshes with my existing view that climate model assessment should typically be of real possibilities. On my analysis, to assert that a proposition is epistemically possible is to assert that it is not known to be false and is consistent with at least approximate knowledge of the basic way things are. I, finally, consider some of the implications of my discussion for available possibilistic views of climate model assessment and for worries about such views. I conclude that my view helps to address worries about such assessment and permits using the full range of climate models in it.</p>","PeriodicalId":48832,"journal":{"name":"European Journal for Philosophy of Science","volume":"6 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal for Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-023-00560-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A number of authors, including me, have argued that the output of our most complex climate models, that is, of global climate models and Earth system models, should be assessed possibilistically. Worries about the viability of doing so have also been expressed. I examine the assessment of the output of relatively simple climate models in the context of discovery and point out that this assessment is of epistemic possibilities. At the same time, I show that the concept of epistemic possibility used in the relevant studies does not fit available analyses of this concept. Moreover, I provide an alternative analysis that does fit the studies and broad climate modelling practices as well as meshes with my existing view that climate model assessment should typically be of real possibilities. On my analysis, to assert that a proposition is epistemically possible is to assert that it is not known to be false and is consistent with at least approximate knowledge of the basic way things are. I, finally, consider some of the implications of my discussion for available possibilistic views of climate model assessment and for worries about such views. I conclude that my view helps to address worries about such assessment and permits using the full range of climate models in it.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
气候科学的认知可能性:来自发现背景下的一些近期研究的教训
包括我在内的许多作者都认为,我们最复杂的气候模型,即全球气候模型和地球系统模型的结果,应该进行可能性评估。也有人对这样做的可行性表示担忧。我检查了在发现的背景下对相对简单的气候模型输出的评估,并指出这种评估是认识上的可能性。同时,我指出相关研究中使用的认知可能性概念并不适合现有的对这一概念的分析。此外,我还提供了另一种分析,它既符合研究和广泛的气候建模实践,也符合我现有的观点,即气候模型评估通常应该是真实的可能性。根据我的分析,断言一个命题在认识论上是可能的,就是断言它不被认为是假的,并且至少与对事物基本方式的近似认识相一致。最后,我考虑一下我的讨论对气候模式评估的现有可能性观点和对这种观点的担忧的一些影响。我的结论是,我的观点有助于解决对这种评估的担忧,并允许在其中使用全方位的气候模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal for Philosophy of Science
European Journal for Philosophy of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: The European Journal for Philosophy of Science publishes groundbreaking works that can deepen understanding of the concepts and methods of the sciences, as they explore increasingly many facets of the world we live in. It is of direct interest to philosophers of science coming from different perspectives, as well as scientists, citizens and policymakers. The journal is interested in articles from all traditions and all backgrounds, as long as they engage with the sciences in a constructive, and critical, way. The journal represents the various longstanding European philosophical traditions engaging with the sciences, but welcomes articles from every part of the world.
期刊最新文献
Questioning origins: the role of ethical and metaethical claims in the debate about the evolution of morality The extraterrestrial hypothesis: an epistemological case for removing the taboo Nagelian reduction and approximation The replication crisis is less of a “crisis” in Lakatos’ philosophy of science than it is in Popper’s Stopping rule and Bayesian confirmation theory
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1