Abstract
It is common to distinguish three main senses of the term “robustness”:
(1) Robustness of models; (2) Robustness as stability or insensitivity of output as against variations in parameter values; (3) Robustness as consilience of results from different and independent hypotheses, procedures or sources of evidence.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the last two meanings of robustness, in order to cope with some difficulties with which robustness as consilience is confronted and which have indirect consequences for the problem of scientific realism. On the one hand, robustness regarded as reproducible stability as against perturbations and variations in parameter values (robustness-as-stability) and robustness as consilience of results from different and independent pieces of evidence (robustness-as-consilience) are conceptually distinct. On the other hand, however, robustness-as-stability is a condition of robustness-as-consilience; and the converse holds also: robustness-as- consilience is an essential ingredient of robustness-as-stability. There is no vicious circle here, but a technical-practical synergy, which is at the heart of the experimental method, and which can help us out of the two main problems for robustness-as-consilience.1
More on the topic Abstract:
-
Contemporary philosophical research -
Fundamentals of philosophy -
Logic -
Philosophy of Science and Technology -
Political philosophy -
Social philosophy -
-
Conflictology -
Ecology -
Economy -
Finance -
History -
Law -
Medicine -
Philosophy -
Religious studies -