Abstract

Francesco Guala once wrote that ‘The problem of extrapolation (or external validity as it is sometimes called) is a minor scandal in the philosophy of science’. This paper agrees with the statement, but for reasons different from Guala’s. The scandal is not, or not any longer, that the problem has been ignored in the philosophy of science. The scandal is that framing the problem as one of external validity encourages poor evidential reasoning. The aim of this paper is to propose an alternative—an alternative which constitutes much better evidential reasoning about target systems of interest, and which makes do without (much) consideration of external validity.

Highlights

  • Francesco Guala once wrote that ‘The problem of extrapolation is a minor scandal in the philosophy of science’ (Guala 2010: p. 1070)

  • The scandal is that framing the problem as one of external validity encourages poor evidential reasoning

  • I will defend the thesis that thinking about causal inference in terms of the ‘internal validity’ and ‘external validity’ of causal claims encourages bad evidential reasoning because it suggests that for a claim to be externally valid of a target system of interest we have to establish an analogous claim for some experimental model system first—which, as I’ll argue, is false

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Francesco Guala once wrote that ‘The problem of extrapolation (or external validity as it is sometimes called) is a minor scandal in the philosophy of science’ (Guala 2010: p. 1070). The scandal is that framing the problem as one of external validity encourages poor evidential reasoning. The aim of this paper is to propose an alternative—an alternative which constitutes much better evidential reasoning about target systems of interest, and which makes do without (or with a minimum of) considerations of external validity. I will defend the thesis that thinking about causal inference in terms of the ‘internal validity’ and ‘external validity’ of causal claims encourages bad evidential reasoning because it suggests that for a claim to be externally valid of a target system of interest we have to establish an analogous claim for some experimental model system first—which, as I’ll argue, is false. It has taken hold of pockets of the social sciences and economics too, and so my remarks find applicability in at least these domains within science

What is the problem of external validity?
Solution strategies
Simple induction
Analogy
Comparative process tracing
External validity by engineering
Field experiments
Thinking in terms of external validity encourages bad evidential reasoning
Non-foundationalist reasoning about target systems of interest
Contextualist reasoning from models without external validity
Suggesting hypotheses
Providing direct support
Specifying hypotheses
Analogies with known carcinogens
Findings
Conclusions
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.