Sharpening the tools of imagination.
Thought experiments, models, diagrams, computer simulations, and metaphors can all be understood as tools of the imagination. While these devices are usually treated separately in philosophy of science, this paper provides a unified account according to which tools of the imagination are epistemical...
| Publicado en: | Synthese Vol. 200; no. 6; pp. 1 - 17 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Dec2022
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=159987573&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 159987573 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00397857 4LI jtl: Synthese issn: 00397857 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Dec2022 vid: 200 iid: 6 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 159987573 10.1007/s11229-022-03939-w ppf: 1 ppct: 16 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 357KB tig: atl: Sharpening the tools of imagination. aug: au: Stuart, Michael T. affil: Institute of Philosophy of Mind and Cognition, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, No.155, Sec.2, Linong Street, 112, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, London School of Economics, London, UK sug: keyword: Computer simulations Deontic epistemology Epistemic tools Epistemological consequentialism Epistemology of science Metaepistemology Metaphor Models Scientific imagination Thought experiment Virtue epistemology Visualization ab: Thought experiments, models, diagrams, computer simulations, and metaphors can all be understood as tools of the imagination. While these devices are usually treated separately in philosophy of science, this paper provides a unified account according to which tools of the imagination are epistemically good insofar as they improve scientific imaginings. Improving scientific imagining is characterized in terms of epistemological consequences: more improvement means better consequences. A distinction is then drawn between tools being good in retrospect, at the time, and in general. In retrospect, tools are evaluated straightforwardly in terms of the quality of their consequences. At the cutting edge, tools are evaluated positively insofar as there is reason to believe that using them will have good consequences. Lastly, tools can be generally good, insofar as their use encourages the development of epistemic virtues, which are good because they have good epistemic consequences. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Synthese is a copyright of Springer, 2022. All Rights Reserved. item: Synthese holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2022 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|