Experimenting and modeling: sharp distinctions, integration or just a mess?

At first sight, experimenting and modeling form two distinct modes of scientific inquiry. This spurs philosophical debates about how the distinction should be drawn (e.g. Morgan 2005, Winsberg 2009, Parker 2009). But much scientific practice casts serious doubts on the idea that the distinction makes much sense. There are two worries. First, the practices of modeling and experimenting are often intertwined in intricate ways because much modeling involves experimenting, and the interpretation of many experiments relies upon models. Second, there are borderline cases that seem to blur the distinction between experiment and model (if there is any). My talk tries to defend the philosophical project of distinguishing models from experiment and to advance the related philosophical debate. I begin with providing a minimalist framework of conceptualizing experimenting and modeling and their mutual relationships. The methods are conceptualized as different types of activities that are characterized by a primary goal, respectively. The minimalist framwork, which should be uncontroversial, suffices to accommodate the first worry. I address the second worry by suggesting several ways how to conceptualize the distinction in a more flexible way. I make a concrete suggestion of how the distinction may be drawn. I use examples from the history of science to argue my case. The talk concentrates and models and experiments, but I will comment on simulations too.

A conceptual model of compensation/decompensation in lumbar segmental instability

Lumbar spinal instability (LSI) is a common spinal disorder and can be associated with substantial disability. The concept of defining clinically relevant classifications of disease or 'target condition' is used in diagnostic research. Applying this concept to LSI we hypothesize that a set of clinical and radiological criteria can be developed to identify patients with this target condition who are at high risk of 'irreversible' decompensated LSI for whom surgery becomes the treatment of choice. In LSI, structural deterioration of the lumbar disc initiates a degenerative cascade of segmental instability. Over time, radiographic signs become visible: traction spurs, facet joint degeneration, misalignment, stenosis, olisthesis and de novo scoliosis. Ligaments, joint capsules, local and distant musculature are the functional elements of the lumbar motion segment. Influenced by non-functional factors, these functional elements allow a compensation of degeneration of the motion segment. Compensation may happen on each step of the degenerative cascade but cannot reverse it. However, compensation of LSI may lead to an alleviation or resolution of clinical symptoms. In return, the target condition of decompensation of LSI may cause the new occurrence of symptoms and pain. Functional compensation and decompensation are subject to numerous factors that can change which makes estimation of an individual's long-term prognosis difficult. Compensation and decompensation may influence radiographic signs of degeneration, e.g. the degree of misalignment and segmental angulation caused by LSI is influenced by the tonus of the local musculature. This conceptual model of compensation/decompensation may help solve the debate on functional and psychosocial factors that influence low back pain and to establish a new definition of non-specific low back pain. Individual differences of identical structural disorders could be explained by compensated or decompensated LSI leading to changes in clinical symptoms and pain. Future spine surgery will have to carefully define and measure functional aspects of LSI, e.g. to identify a point of no return where multidisciplinary interventions do not allow a re-compensation and surgery becomes the treatment of choice.

Privacy Policies and Users’ Trust: Does Readability Matter?

Over the years, a drastic increase in online information disclosure spurs a wave of concerns from multiple stakeholders. Among others, users resent the “behind the closed doors” processing of their personal data by companies. Privacy policies are supposed to inform users how their personal information is handled by a website. However, several studies have shown that users rarely read privacy policies for various reasons, not least because limitedly readable policy texts are difficult to understand. Based on our online survey with over 440 responses, we examine the objective and subjective readability of privacy policies and investigate their impact on users’ trust in five big Internet services. Our findings show the stronger a user believes in having understood the privacy policy, the higher he or she trusts a web site across all companies we studied. Our results call for making readability of privacy policies more accessible to an average reader.