The Tenability of Examples

I was intrigued by the way that Elgin presented the idea of "examples" and "models," particularly in science. I suppose that in the back of my mind, I've always known that models are normative and by no means an empirical reflection of how the world REALLY works. Nevertheless, they are academically and practically useful. With regard to ideal models, there was a passage from Chapter 5 that I found particularly instructive:

"Were they committed to the reality of their referents [idealizations, approximations, thought experiments and other falsifying assumptions], theories deploying such devices would be in sorry shape...that there exists NO IDEAL GAS DOES NOT DISCREDIT THE IDEAL GAS LAW. But that there exists no phlogistan decisively discredits phlogistan theory. The difference is plain. The ideal gas law is a fiction. So its falsity does not tell against it. Since phlogistic laws purport to be factual, their falsity is their undoing" (183).

This is a particularly relevant, interesting and enlightening passage because normative models are in fact false, prima facie, but nevertheless invaluable. Were we to do away with thought experiments and models, for example, the field of economics as we know it would probably cease to function. Philosophy would certainly suffer in the absence of thought-experiments (Rawls' theory of justice would crash and burn) and even chemistry would suffer greatly. I find all of this exceedingly interesting because it's self-evident but rarely acknowledged by the academic disciplines it pertains to (particularly in the hard sciences).

I found Elgin's commentary on fiction less relevant. While it is true that fiction and writing can help open our eyes to aspects of the human experience we might not have noticed before (188-189), works of fiction like Shakespeare's can only do so within the confines of what Shakespeare views as relevant to our understanding of human nature. There is nothing inherent in prose or poetry that offers new insights into human nature; the medium, in and of itself, in my opinion, does not reveal anything that Shakespeare could not tell you in person. What the medium does, instead, is to magnify the effect of Shakespeare's innate wisdom about human nature and help the reader better understand jealousy or lust. Thought experiments and models are different because they may reveal knowledge that we otherwise would not come to. Rawl's veil of ignorance theory, for instance, serves as a method of PRODUCING an insight. Poetry, as a medium, does not PRODUCE insight but instead TRANSMITS it. This is not to denigrate the role of poetry; I myself am a poet. However, I do not think that Elgin portrays the role of fiction and poetry in understanding very accurately.

Or perhaps I'm just misunderstanding the reading.