The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Three Kinds of Idealization
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“All scientific models contain idealisations: the intentional misrepresentation of a target system.”
From Explaining known past routes, underdetermination, and the use of multiple cost functions (2024) · cites this paper as Weisberg, 2007
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- James Woodward, Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).
- Michael Strevens, "The Causal and Unification Accounts of Explanation Unified - Causally", Noûs, XXXVIII (2004), pp. 154-179.
- Tania Lombrozo, "The Structure and Function of Explanations," Trends in Cognitive Science, X (2006), pp. 464-470.
- Roald Hoffmann, V. I. Minkin, and Barry K. Carpenter, "Ockham's Razor and Chemistry," Bulletin de la Société Chimique de France, CXXXIII (1996), pp. 117-130.
- Malcom R. Forster, "The New Science of Simplicity," in Arnold Zellner, Hugo Keuzenkamp, and Michael McAleer (eds.), Simplicity, Inference and Modelling, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 83-117.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Trade-offs in model-building: A more target-oriented approach
Matthewson, J. (2011) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A · doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.11.040 · Cited by 46
Explaining known past routes, underdetermination, and the use of multiple cost functions
Lewis, J. (2024) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-023-09621-w · Cited by 15
Stoa, R. (2020) · Stoa · doi:10.25009/st.2020.21.2596 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Weisberg, M., & Journal of Philosophy, I.
- Venue
- Journal of Philosophy
- Publisher
- Philosophy Documentation Center
- Published
- 2007
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 639-659
- ISSN
- 0022-362X
- Cited by
- 418
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
