Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:50:49.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extrapolation, Analogy, and Comparative Process Tracing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Francesco Guala
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Comparative process tracing is the best analysis of extrapolation inferences in the philosophical and scientific literature so far. In this essay I examine some similarities and differences between comparative process tracing and former attempts to capture the logic of extrapolation, such as the analogical approach. I show that these accounts are not different in spirit, although comparative process tracing supersedes previous proposals in terms of analytical detail. I also examine some qualms about the possibility of drawing extrapolation inferences in the social sciences and conclude by suggesting that there may be cases of extrapolation without process tracing.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 77 , Issue 5 , December 2010 , pp. 1070 - 1082
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

Earlier versions of this essay were presented at the 2008 International Philosophy of Science conference in Dubrovnik and the 2008 Philosophy of Science Association meeting in Pittsburgh. I thank participants to both conferences and especially Julian Reiss and Daniel Steel for detailed comments that helped me during revision. The usual caveats apply.

References

Cartwright, Nancy. 2007. Hunting Causes and Using Them. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511618758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, Lindley, and Craver, Carl. 2002. “Strategies in the Interfield Discovery of the Mechanism of Protein Synthesis.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 33:1–28.10.1016/S1369-8486(01)00021-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald. 1983. “Testing Theoretical Hypotheses.” In Testing Scientific Theories, ed. Earman, John, 269–98. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Glennan, Stuart. 2005. “Modeling Mechanisms.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36:443–64.10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2009. “Causal Pluralism.” In Oxford Handbook of Causation, ed. Bebee, Helen, Menzies, Peter, and Hitchcock, Christopher. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guala, Francesco. 1998. “Experiments as Mediators in the Non-laboratory Sciences.” Philosophica 62:901–18.Google Scholar
Guala, Francesco. 2005. The Methodology of Experimental Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511614651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guala, Francesco. 2008. “The Experimental Philosophy of Experimental Economics: Replies to Alexandrova, Hargreaves-Heap, Hausman and Hindriks.” Journal of Economic Methodology 15:224–31.Google Scholar
Kagel, John, and Levin, Dan. 1986. “The Winner's Curse Phenomenon and Public Information in Common Value Auctions.” American Economic Review 76:894–920.Google Scholar
LaFollette, Hugh, and Shanks, Niall. 1995. “Two Models of Models in Biomedical Research.” Philosophical Quarterly 45:141–60.10.2307/2220412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, Deborah. 1996. Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226511993.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, Deborah. 2005. “Evidence as Passing a Severe Test: Highly Probable versus Highly Probed Hypotheses.” In Scientific Evidence: Philosophical Theories and Applications, ed. Achinstein, Peter. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Reiss, Julian. 2008. “Causation in the Social Sciences: An Inferentialist Perspective.” Paper presented at the 2008 International Philosophy of Science conference, Dubrovnik.Google Scholar
Schaffner, Kenneth. 2001. “Extrapolation from Animal Models: Social Life, Sex, and Super Models.” In Theory and Method in the Neurosciences, ed. Machamer, Peter, Grush, Rick, and McLaughlin, Peter. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Steel, Daniel. 2008. Across the Boundaries: Extrapolation in Biology and Social Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sugden, Robert. 2005. “Experiments as Exhibits and Experiments as Tests.” Journal of Economic Methodology 12:291–302.10.1080/13501780500086248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, Paul. 1999. How Scientists Explain Disease. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691187303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, Richard H. 1988. “Anomalies: The Winner's Curse.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 2:191–202.10.1257/jep.2.1.191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, Richard H., and Tversky, Amos. 1990. “Anomalies: Preference Reversals.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 4:201–11.Google Scholar
Weber, Marcel. 2005. Philosophy of Experimental Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, Jim. 2003. Making Things Happen. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar