TY - JOUR
T1 - Epidemiological Models and Epistemic Perspectives: How Scientific Pluralism may be Misconstrued
AU - Gaj, Nicolo' Maria
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - In a scenario characterized by unpredictable developments, such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic, epidemiological models have played a leading part, having been especially widely deployed for forecasting purposes. In this paper, two real-world examples of modeling are examined in support of the proposition that science can convey inconsistent as well as genuinely perspectival representations of the world. Reciprocally inconsistent outcomes are grounded on incompatible assumptions, whereas perspectival outcomes are grounded on compatible assumptions and illuminate different aspects of the same object of interest. In both cases, models should be viewed as expressions of specific assumptions and unconstrained choices on the part of those designing them. The coexistence of a variety of models reflects a primary feature of science, namely its pluralism. It is herein proposed that recent over-exposure to science’s inner workings and disputes such as those pertaining to models, may have led the public to perceive pluralism as a flaw – or more specifically, as disunity or fragmentation, which in turn may have been interpreted as a sign of unreliability. In conclusion, given the inescapability of pluralism, suggestions are offered as to how to counteract distorted perceptions of science, and thereby enhance scientific literacy.
AB - In a scenario characterized by unpredictable developments, such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic, epidemiological models have played a leading part, having been especially widely deployed for forecasting purposes. In this paper, two real-world examples of modeling are examined in support of the proposition that science can convey inconsistent as well as genuinely perspectival representations of the world. Reciprocally inconsistent outcomes are grounded on incompatible assumptions, whereas perspectival outcomes are grounded on compatible assumptions and illuminate different aspects of the same object of interest. In both cases, models should be viewed as expressions of specific assumptions and unconstrained choices on the part of those designing them. The coexistence of a variety of models reflects a primary feature of science, namely its pluralism. It is herein proposed that recent over-exposure to science’s inner workings and disputes such as those pertaining to models, may have led the public to perceive pluralism as a flaw – or more specifically, as disunity or fragmentation, which in turn may have been interpreted as a sign of unreliability. In conclusion, given the inescapability of pluralism, suggestions are offered as to how to counteract distorted perceptions of science, and thereby enhance scientific literacy.
KW - COVID-19 pandemic
KW - Epidemiological models
KW - Perspectivism
KW - Scientific dissemination
KW - Scientific pluralism
KW - COVID-19 pandemic
KW - Epidemiological models
KW - Perspectivism
KW - Scientific dissemination
KW - Scientific pluralism
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10807/257994
UR - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-023-09936-7
U2 - 10.1007/s10699-023-09936-7
DO - 10.1007/s10699-023-09936-7
M3 - Article
SN - 1233-1821
SP - N/A-N/A
JO - Foundations of Science
JF - Foundations of Science
ER -