Models as Epistemic Tools in Engineering Sciences

Boon, Mieke; Knuuttila, Tarja

doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-51667-1.50030-6

Cited by 71 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead of scientific knowledge firstly being a representation of how the world is independent of humans, they propose to characterize knowledge as epistemic tools (Nersessian 2009, Boon and Knuuttila 2009, Feest 2010, Knuuttila and Boon 2011, Boon 2012a, Green 2013. 3 Here, it is suggested that 'knowledge as representation' (in a correspondence sense) is deeply embedded in the physics paradigm whereas 'knowledge as epistemic tool' is central to the engineering paradigm.…”

Section: What Is Knowledge? Knowledge As Epistemic Tool (Element I-b mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Boon and Knuuttila (2009), the construction of a scientific model involves the integration of heterogeneous aspects into a coherent whole, utilizing relevant epistemic content (i.e., results of previous scientific research, see element XI-B, first point), with a specific epistemic purpose in mind (element I) and aiming to meet epistemic criteria relevant to that purpose (element II). The construction of scientific models is also guided by relevant principles (such as basic and regulative principles, see element III; and, theoretical principles, see element IV).…”

Section: What Is Knowledge? Knowledge As Epistemic Tool (Element I-b mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Epistemic results (theories, models, laws, concepts) are epistemic tools constructed for epistemic uses such as construction of explanations and predictions, model-building (e.g., mechanistic, mathematical, experimental and synthetic models), creative thinking, problem-solving, computer simulations, and design of experimental equipment (Boon and Knuuttila 2009, Knuuttila and Boon 2011, Boon 2012a, Green 2013). 3.…”

Section: Epistemologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An engineering paradigm in the biomedical sciences: Knowledge as epistemic tool

Boon

2017

Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to deal with the complexity of biological systems and attempts to generate applicable results, current biomedical sciences are adopting concepts and methods from the engineering sciences. Philosophers of science have interpreted this as the emergence of an engineering paradigm, in particular in systems biology and synthetic biology. This article aims at the articulation of the supposed engineering paradigm by contrast with the physics paradigm that supported the rise of biochemistry and molecular biology. This articulation starts from Kuhn's notion of a disciplinary matrix, which indicates what constitutes a paradigm. It is argued that the core of the physics paradigm is its metaphysical and ontological presuppositions, whereas the core of the engineering paradigm is the epistemic aim of producing useful knowledge for solving problems external to the scientific practice. Therefore, the two paradigms involve distinct notions of knowledge. Whereas the physics paradigm entails a representational notion of knowledge, the engineering paradigm involves the notion of 'knowledge as epistemic tool'.

show abstract

Section: What Is Knowledge? Knowledge As Epistemic Tool (Element I-b mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: What Is Knowledge? Knowledge As Epistemic Tool (Element I-b mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Epistemologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An engineering paradigm in the biomedical sciences: Knowledge as epistemic tool

Boon

2017

Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regardless of such an articulation, the subject of models and modelling is not considered in a comprehensive manner in this strand and is confined to some brief discussion about various types of models and only two types of modelling: "functional modelling [which] allows for the ongoing testing of design concepts for yet---to---be- The philosophical reflections, however, deliver extensive descriptions that, as highlighted by Nia and de Vries (2016b), are worth considering in technological literacy programmes. Morrison and Morgan (1999) and subsequently Boon and Knuuttila (2009) have made prudent attempts to release 'models' from the customary perspective of considering them to be merely representational tools -the perspective which, by the same token for NZC and TCS, sees modelling merely as representing a reality (Ministry of Education of New Zealand, 2010, pp. 16, 49).…”

Section: On 'Technology As Knowledge'mentioning

confidence: 99%

The New Zealand Curriculum's approach to technological literacy through the lens of the philosophy of technology

Nia¹,

Vries

2016

AJTE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Australasian Journal of TechnologyEducation is a peer refereed journal, and provides a forum for scholarly discussion on topics relating to technology education. Submissions are welcomed relating to the primary, secondary and higher education sectors, initial teacher education and continuous professional development, and general research about Technology Education. Contributions to the on--going research debate are encouraged from any country. The expectation is that the Journal will publish articles at the leading edge of development of the subject area. The Journal seeks to publish• reports of research,• articles based on action research by practitioners,• literature reviews, and

show abstract

“…their artificial production or prevention) by developing scientific understanding about them (cf. Boon 2009;Boon and Knuuttila 2009). Therefore, the epistemic aim of these practices differs from the ultimate aim that the philosophy of science usually ascribes to science.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Scientific Practices: The Role of Robustness Notions

Boon

2012

Characterizing the Robustness of Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the role of 'robustness-notions' in an account of the engineering sciences. The engineering sciences aim at technological production of, and intervention with phenomena relevant to the (dis-)functioning of materials and technological devices, by means of scientific understanding thereof. It is proposed that different kinds of robustness-notions enable and guide scientific research: (1) Robustness is as a metaphysical belief that we have about the physical world -i.e., we believe that the world is robust in the sense that the same physical conditions will always produce the same effects. (2) 'Same conditions -same effects' functions as a regulative principle that enables and guides scientific research because it points to, and justifies methodological notions. (3) Repetition, variance and multiple-determination function as methodological criteria for scientific methods that justify the acceptance of epistemological and ontological results. (4) Reproducibility and stability function as ontological criteria for the acceptance of phenomena described by A→B. (5) Reliability functions as an epistemological criterion for the acceptance of epistemological results, in particular lawlike knowledge of a conditional form: "A→B, provided C device , and unless other known and/or unknown causally relevant conditions." The crucial question is how different kinds of robustnessnotions are related and how they play their part in the production and acceptance of scientific results. Focus is on production and acceptance of physical phenomena and the rule-like knowledge thereof. Based on an analysis of how philosoophy of science tradtionally justified scientific knowledge, I propose a general schema that specifies how inferences to the claim that a scientific result has a certain epistemological property (such as truth) are justified by scientific methods that meet specific methodological criteria. It is proposed that 'same conditionssame effects' as a regulative criterion justifies 'repetition, variation and multipledetermination' as methodological criteria for the production and acceptance of (ontological and epistemological) scientific results.

show abstract

Models as Epistemic Tools in Engineering Sciences

Cited by 71 publications

References 19 publications

An engineering paradigm in the biomedical sciences: Knowledge as epistemic tool

An engineering paradigm in the biomedical sciences: Knowledge as epistemic tool

The New Zealand Curriculum's approach to technological literacy through the lens of the philosophy of technology

Understanding Scientific Practices: The Role of Robustness Notions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About