Corey Dethier (University of Notre Dame)
In spite of its massive influence, Duhem's argument for testing holism rests on a mistake: it conflates the assumptions necessary for the derivation of an empirical consequence with the assumptions necessary for that consequence to be evidence. Using examples from physics and biology, I argue that these come apart and the nature of the latter depend on the details of the case. This hundred-year-old mistake has surprising relevance for contemporary discussions of the epistemology of models, simulations, and testing.
