Ylwa Sjölin Wirling

Often, inquirers who do not know the right answer to a question they are inquiring into are nevertheless in a position to grasp a range of possible answers to it. This article proposes that such inquirers are in a position to have a particular form of understanding: non-factive objectual understanding. The state differs from non-factive states discussed in the extant understanding literature by focusing on grasping of multiple accounts that are all live possibilities. Non-factive objectual understanding is an epistemic improvement that primarily enriches the subject’s grasp on the target phenomenon. Once the contours and the value of this state are made clearer, its importance in accounting for nuances of epistemic progress in many different contexts also emerges—including, but not limited to, progress made in inquiries where knowledge and factive understanding is, practically or as a matter of principle, out of reach.

Modeling cuts across sundry scientific practices, contributing to theorizing, experimentation, prediction, measurement, scientific instrumentation, and science education. Beyond the sciences, modeling plays a crucial role in citizen engagement with science and public policy decision-making. It plays a major role in the efforts to address the huge challenges of the 21st century, including but not limited to climate change, shortage of natural resources, loss of biodiversity, and economic forecasting in increasingly unforeseeable situations. The diversity of scientific models is astounding; side-by-side mathematical and scale models, technological advances such as rapidly expanding big data, computational and synthetic approaches, and generative AI are pushing modeling toward new frontiers, redefining the epistemic agency between humans and scientific instruments. A discussion of what we can achieve through modeling, and how we should manage model-based practices, is critical for ensuring a good and responsible use of this epistemic resource. The chapters of The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Scientific Modeling, written by experts in various areas of the philosophy of science, seek to provide enduring philosophical insights and useful analyses for understanding modeling in its multiplicity.

Models are used to explore possibilities across all scientific fields. Climate models simulate the potential future climatic conditions under various emissions scenarios, macroeconomic models investigate the implications of various fiscal and monetary policy initiatives, and infectious diseases models study the spread of viral diseases under a range of conditions. Such modeling approaches have not gone ignored by philosophers of science, but they have only recently started to explicitly address modeling the possible. So far, the discussion has been spread across a variety of more or less isolated pockets of debate in the philosophy of science. Modeling the Possible: Perspectives from Philosophy of Science draws together these studies, focusing specifically on how various modeling practices probe possibilities and justify claims concerning them. The volume is divided into three sections, plus an introductory chapter. The introductory chapter provides a state-of-the-art survey of the discussions of modeling possibilities within philosophy of science, as well as an introduction to the book's main themes and individual papers. The three sections focus on different kinds of possibility concepts, possibility spaces, and how-possibly modeling in practical situations. The chapters contained in this volume address conceptual and theoretical issues while also presenting case studies from various scientific domains: physics, evolutionary and synthetic biology, network science, climate science, economics, and epidemiology. Essential reading for philosophers of science, epistemologists, and modelers in various scientific disciplines, Modeling the Possible is also suitable for anyone interested in model-based scientific inferences, their validity, and the policy conclusions derived from them"-- Provided by publisher.

Several philosophers of science have drawn attention to a number of modeling practices where scientific models primarily contribute modal information. Examples now abound, and, recently, there have also been some preliminary attempts to address questions of under what conditions, and by virtue of what, models can perform this modal epistemic function. This paper sets out to constructively review those attempts through a prism of the more general literature on the epistemology of modality. One aim of this exercise is to expose the underlying justificatory strategies of the modal modeling accounts – which are strikingly convergent with those already identified by modal epistemologists. Another aim is to highlight some challenges familiar to modal epistemology and discuss the form they take in the context of modal modeling as well as the resources that modal modeling accounts have for dealing with them. This is all done with an eye to pointing out ways forward in further developing the work on the epistemology of modal modeling.

Models are used to explore possibilities across all scientific fields. Climate models simulate the potential future climatic conditions under various emissions scenarios, macroeconomic models investigate the implications of various fiscal and monetary policy initiatives, and infectious diseases models study the spread of viral diseases under a range of conditions. Such modeling approaches have not gone ignored by philosophers of science, but they have only recently started to explicitly address modeling the possible. So far, the discussion has been spread across a variety of more or less isolated pockets of debate in the philosophy of science. Modeling the Possible: Perspectives from Philosophy of Science draws together these studies, focusing specifically on how various modeling practices probe possibilities and justify claims concerning them. The volume is divided into three sections, plus an introductory chapter. The introductory chapter provides a state-of-the-art survey of the discussions of modeling possibilities within the philosophy of science, as well as an introduction to the book’s main themes and individual papers. The three sections focus on different kinds of possibility concepts, possibility spaces, and how-possibly modeling in practical situations. The chapters contained in this volume address conceptual and theoretical issues while also presenting case studies from various scientific domains: physics, evolutionary and synthetic biology, network science, climate science, economics, and epidemiology. Essential reading for philosophers of science, epistemologists, and modelers in various scientific disciplines, Modeling the Possible is also suitable for anyone interested in model-based scientific inferences, their validity, and the policy conclusions derived from them.

This chapter concerns modal modeling practices: scientific modeling practices that are explicitly said to deliver, or should arguably be interpreted as delivering, support for modal conclusions. That includes, for instance, conclusions concerning possible causes, potential properties, and counterfactual histories. The chapter first outlines and gives examples of modal modeling practices and stresses the fact that such practices encompass a number of different kinds of modality, including both epistemic and objective modalities. It then describes three distinct but related sets of methodological and epistemological issues raised by modal modeling and briefly reviews some possible ways to approach them. The chapter ends by highlighting some lacunae in the literature where further work is needed.

This paper interrogates the idea of a virtue-first approach to the question of what has fundamental epistemic value. It has been suggested that a virtue-first approach is needed to strengthen the view known as veritism, according to which only truth has fundamental epistemic value. I distinguish between an ontological and a methodological virtue-first approach, and suggest that only the latter is an attractive option for a veritist. I then argue that the methodological virtue-first approach is incompatible with the idea that the epistemic domain is insulated, in the sense that being of epistemic value does not entail being of value. But insulationism is arguably an important tool for veritists in meeting various objections to their view, aside from being considered generally attractive by many. Veritists thus face a dilemma that requires them to give up one of two arguably attractive tools in their kit: either the virtue-first motivation of their view, or the insulationist conception of epistemic value.

According to a recent proposal, the epistemic aim of metaphysics as a discipline is to chart the different viable theories of metaphysical objects of inquiry (e.g. causation, persistence). This paper elaborates on and seeks to improve on that proposal in two related ways. First, drawing on an analogy with how-possibly explanation in science, I argue that we can usefully understand this aim of metaphysics as the charting of epistemically possible answers to metaphysical questions. Second, I argue that in order to account for the epistemic goodness of this aim, one should appeal to the epistemic value it has in virtue of providing resources for non-factive understanding of the objects of metaphysical inquiry.**This paper is part of a special issue of Argumenta on the Epistemology of Metaphysics**

Veritists hold that only truth has fundamental epistemic value. They are committed to explaining all other instances of epistemic goodness as somehow deriving their value through a relation to truth, and in order to do so they arguably need a non-instrumental relation of epistemic value derivation. As is currently common in epistemology, many veritists assume that the epistemic is an insulated evaluative domain: claims about what has epistemic value are independent of claims about what has value simpliciter. This paper argues that the insulation approach to epistemic value is incompatible with non-instrumental epistemic value derivation. Veritsts who want to avail themselves of this important explanatory resource should therefore abandon the insulation approach.

Field’s challenge to platonists is the challenge to explain the reliable match between mathematical truth and belief. The challenge grounds an objection claiming that platonists cannot provide such an explanation. This objection is often taken to be both neutral with respect to controversial epistemological assumptions, and a comparatively forceful objection against platonists. I argue that these two characteristics are in tension: no construal of the objection in the current literature realises both, and there are strong reasons to think that no version of Field’s epistemological objection which has both Neutrality and Force can be construed.

Philosophers often make exotic-sounding modal claims, such as: “A timeless world is impossible”, “The laws of physics could have been different from what they are”, “There could have been an additional phenomenal colour”. Otherwise popular empiricist modal epistemologies in the contemporary literature cannot account for whatever epistemic justification we might have for making such modal claims. Those who do not, as a result of this, endorse scepticism with respect to their epistemic status typically suggest that they can be justified but have yet to develop some distinct, workable theory of how. That is, they endorse a form of non-uniformism about the epistemology of modality, according to which claims about philosophically interesting modal matters need to be justified differently from e.g. everyday or scientific modal claims, but they fail to provide any more detail. This article aims to fill this gap by outlining how such a non-uniformist view could be spelled out and what story about philosophically interesting modal justification it could contain.

Philosophers of science have recently taken care to highlight different modeling practices where scientific models primarily contribute modal information, in the form of for example possibility claims, how-possibly explanations, or counterfactual conditionals. While examples abound, comparatively little attention is being paid to the question of under what conditions, and in virtue of what, models can perform this epistemic function. In this paper, we firstly delineate modal modeling from other modeling practices, and secondly reviewattempts to spell out and explain the epistemic success conditions of modal modeling. The aim is to more clearly expose the respective justificatory strategies of these accounts, and secondly, to identify lacunae where further work is needed.

Scientists regularly make possibility claims. While philosophers of science are well aware of the distinction between epistemic and objective notions of possibility, we believe that they often fail to apply this distinction in their analyses of scientific practices that employ modal concepts. We argue that heeding this distinction will help further progress in current debates in the philosophy of science, as it shows that the debaters talk about different things, rather than disagree on the same issue. We first discuss how the two notions differ with respect to their epistemology and show that these differences are sometimes ignored in the philosophy of science. We then revisit four current philosophy of science debates about modelling, that are framed in modal terms, to showcase how the distinction significantly clarifies these debates and thereby helps advance them.

Empiricist modal epistemologies can be attractive, but are often limited in the range of modal knowledge they manage to secure. In this paper, I argue that one such account – similarity-based modal empiricism – can be extended to also cover justification of many scientifically interesting possibility claims. Drawing on recent work on modelling in the philosophy of science, I suggest that scientific modelling is usefully seen as the creation and investigation of relevantly similar epistemic counterparts of real target systems. On the basis of experiential knowledge of what is actually the case with the models, one can draw justified conclusions about what is de re possible for the target systems.

Several philosophers of science claim that scientific toy models afford knowledge of possibility, but answers to the question of why toy models can be expected to competently play this role are scarce. The main line of reply is that toy models support possibility claims insofar as they are credible. I raise a challenge for this credibility-thesis, drawing on a familiar problem for imagination-based modal epistemologies, and argue that it remains unanswered in the current literature. The credibility-thesis has a long way to go if it is to account for the epistemic merits of toy models.

Separatists are grounding theorists who hold that grounding relations and metaphysical explanations are distinct, yet intimately connected in the sense that grounding relations back metaphysical explanations, just as causal relations back causal explanations. But Separatists have not elaborated on the nature of the ‘backing’ relation. In this paper, I argue that backing is a form of (partial) grounding. In particular, backing has many of the properties commonly attributed to grounding, and taking backing to be partial grounding allows Separatists to make the most of their position vis‐à‐vis their Unionist opponents.

Uniformism about the epistemology of modality is the view that there is only one basic route to modal knowledge; non-uniformism is the view that there are several. Non-uniformism is becoming an increasingly popular stance, but how can it be defended? I prise apart two ways of understanding the uniformism/non-uniformism conflict that are mixed up in the literature. I argue that once separated, it is evident that they lead up to two different non-uniformist theses that need to be argued for in very different ways. In particular, one construal allows only for a weak thesis about the actual lay of the current theoretical land in modal epistemology, while the other allows for a strong thesis that can be defended without reliance on claims about the alleged goodness or badness of individual accounts of modal justification. I argue that philosophers inclined towards non-uniformism ought to go for the strong, rather than the weak, thesis.

The idea that justified modal belief can be accounted for in terms of empirically justified, non-modal belief is enjoying increasing popularity in the epistemology of modality. One alleged reason to prefer modal empiricism over more traditional, rationalist modal epistemologies is that empiricism avoids the problem with the integration challenge that arise for rationalism, assuming that we want to be realists about modal metaphysics. In this paper, I argue that given two very reasonable constraints on what it means to meet the integration challenge for modality, empiricism is currently at best on a par with, but potentially worse off than, rationalist alternatives, with respect to the integration challenge.

This paper concerns an epistemological objection against mathematical platonism, due to Hartry Field.The argument poses an explanatory challenge – the challenge to explain the reliability of our mathematical beliefs – which the platonist, it’s argued, cannot meet. Is the objection compelling? Philosophers disagree, but they also disagree on (and are sometimes very unclear about) how the objection should be understood. Here I distinguish some options, and highlight some gaps that need to be filled in on the potentially most compelling version of the argument.

Philosophers have always taken an interest not only in what is actually the case, but in what is necessarily the case and what could possibly be the case. These are questions of modality. Epistemologists of modality enquire into how we can know what is necessary and what is possible. This dissertation concerns the meta-epistemology of modality. It engages with the rules that govern construction and evaluation of theories in the epistemology of modality, by using modal empiricism – a form of modal epistemology – as a running example. In particular, I investigate the assumption that it is important to be able to meet the integration challenge. Meeting the integration challenge is a source of serious difficulty for many approaches, but modal empiricism is supposed to do well in this respect. But I argue that once we have a better grasp of what the integration challenge is, it is not obvious that it presents no problem for modal empiricism. Moreover, even if modal empiricism could be said to be in a relatively good position with respect to integration, it comes at the cost of a forced choice between far-reaching partial modal scepticism and non-uniformism about the epistemology of modality. Non-uniformism is the view that more than one modal epistemology will be correct. While non-uniformism might not in itself be unpalatable, it must be defined and defended in a way which squares with the modal empiricist’s other commitment. I explore two ways of doing so, both involving a revised idea of the integration challenge and its role for the epistemology of modality. One involves a bifurcation of the integration challenge, and the other a restriction of the integration challenge’s relevance. Both ways are interesting, but neither is, as it turns out, a walk in the park.

Proceeding from a distinction between imagining oneself in another person’s situation and imagining oneself being someone else, this article attempts to elucidate what the latter type of imagining consists in. Previous attempts at spelling out the phenomenon fail to properly account for the role of the self, or rather every individual’s unique point of view. An alternative view is presented, where the concept of imagining oneself being someone else is explained in terms of a distinction between and a co-running of the imaginer’s own perspective and that of the target individual. It is further argued that while we can imagine about an individual without imagining her having any of her actual properties, to meaningfully imagine oneself being someone else the imaginer needs to ascribe at least some qualitative property to the target individual for the imaginative project to get off the ground. Finally, the concept of empathy is used to illustrate the analysis provided, and the imagining oneself being someone else is in turn used to cast light on what is to be understood as genuine empathy.