Skip to main content

Probing Possibilities: Toy Models, Minimal Models, and Exploratory Models

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology (MBR 2018)

Part of the book series: Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics ((SAPERE,volume 49))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

According to one influential view, model-building in science is primarily a matter of simplifying theoretical descriptions of real-world target systems using abstraction and idealization. This view, however, does not adequately capture all types of models. Many contemporary models in the natural and social sciences – from physics to biology to economics – stand in a more tenuous relationship with real-world target systems and have a decidedly stipulative element, in that they create, by fiat, ‘model worlds’ that operate according to some set of specified rules. While such models may be motivated by an interest in actual target phenomena, their validity is not – at least not primarily – to be judged by whether they constitute an empirically adequate representation of any particular empirical system. The present paper compares and contrasts three such types of models: minimal models, toy models, and exploratory models. All three share some characteristics and thus overlap in interesting ways, yet they also exhibit significant differences. It is argued that, in all three cases, modal considerations have an important role to play: by exploring the modal structure of theories and phenomena – that is, by probing possibilities in various ways – such models deepen our understanding and help us gain knowledge not only about what there is in the world, but also about what there could be.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Luczak also notes the heuristic function of “generat[ing] hypotheses about other systems”, which, on my interpretation, would best be subsumed under exploratory uses of models, to be discussed in Sect. 5.3 of this paper (see also Gelfert 2016, ch. 4).

  2. 2.

    See (Reutlinger, Hangleiter, and Hartmann 2018, pp. 1075–1077).

  3. 3.

    For a discussion of this example as an illustration of one of several key functions of exploratory modelling, see (Gelfert 2016, pp. 85–86).

  4. 4.

    For a full discussion of this example from the perspective of exploratory modelling, see (Gelfert 2018).

References

  • Bailer-Jones D (2002) Scientists’ thoughts on scientific models. Perspect Sci 10(3):275–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batterman R (2002) Asymptotics and the role of minimal models. Br J Philos Sci 53(1):21–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batterman R, Rice C (2014) Minimal model explanations. Philos Sci 81(3):349–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright N (1983) How the laws of physics lie. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Diéguez A (2015) Scientific understanding and the explanatory use of false models. In: Bertolaso M (ed) The future of scientific practice: ‘bio-techno-logos’. Pickering & Chatto, London, pp 161–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Dray W (1957) Laws and explanation in history. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Forber P (2010) Confirmation and explaining how possible. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 41(1):32–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelfert A (2016) How to do science with models: a philosophical primer. Springer, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gelfert A (2018) Models in search of targets: exploratory modelling and the case of Turing patterns. In: Christian A, Hommen D, Retzlaff N, Schurz G (eds) Philosophy of science: between natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 245–271

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Goldenfeld N (1992) Lectures on phase transitions and the renormalization group. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottschalk-Mazouz N (2012) Toy Modeling: Warum gibt es (immer noch) sehr einfache Modelle in den empirischen Wissenschaften? In: Fischer P, Luckner A, Ramming U (eds) Die Reflexion des Möglichen. LIT-Verlag, Berlin, pp 17–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadanoff LP (1966) Scaling laws for Ising models near Tc. Physics 2(6):263–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luczak J (2016) Talk about toy models. Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 57(1):1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Massimi M (2018) Perspectival modeling. Philos Sci 85(3):335–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMullin E (1985) Galilean idealization. Stud History Philos Sci Part A 16(3):247–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehmet M, Sober E (2002) Cartwright on explanation and idealization. In: Earman J, Glymour C, Mitchell S (eds) Ceteris paribus laws. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 165–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison M, Morgan M (1999) Models as mediating instruments. In: Morrison M, Morgan M (eds) Models as mediators: perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 10–37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pipes LA (1953) An operational analysis of traffic dynamics. J Appl Phys 24(3):274–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss J (2012) The explanation paradox. J Econ Methodol 19(1):43–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reutlinger A, Hangleiter D, Hartmann S (2018) Understanding (with) toy models. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 69(4):1069–1099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reydon T (2012) How-possibly explanations as genuine explanations and helpful heuristics: a comment on Forber. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 43(1):302–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice C (2019) Models don’t decompose that way: a holistic view of idealized models. Br J Philos Sci 70(1):179–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roughgarden J, Bergman A, Shafir S, Taylor C (1996) Adaptive computation in ecology and evolution: a guide for future research. In: Belew RK, Mitchell M (eds) Adaptive individuals in evolving populations: models and algorithms. Addison-Wesley, Boston, pp 25–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Strevens M (2009) Depth: an account of scientific explanation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugden R (2000) Credible worlds: the status of theoretical models in economics. J Econ Methodol 7(1):1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turing A (1952) The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Philos Trans Roy Soc Lond (Ser B Biol Sci) 237(641):37–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg M (2007) Three kinds of idealization. J Philos 104(12):639–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward J (2009) Scientific explanation In: Zalta E (ed) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition). https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/spr2009/entries/scientific-explanation/. Accessed 03 Mar 2019

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Axel Gelfert .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Gelfert, A. (2019). Probing Possibilities: Toy Models, Minimal Models, and Exploratory Models. In: Nepomuceno-Fernández, Á., Magnani, L., Salguero-Lamillar, F., Barés-Gómez, C., Fontaine, M. (eds) Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology. MBR 2018. Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, vol 49. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32722-4_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics