To demarcate the limits of experimental knowledge, we probe the limits of what might be called an experiment. By appeal to examples of scientific practice from astrophysics and analogue gravity, we demonstrate that the reliability of knowledge regarding certain phenomena gained from an experiment is not circumscribed by the manipulability or accessibility of the target phenomena. Rather, the limits of experimental knowledge are set by the extent to which strategies for what we call ‘inductive triangulation’ are available: that is, the validation of the mode of inductive reasoning involved in the source-target inference via appeal to one or more distinct and independent modes of inductive reasoning. When such strategies are able to partially mitigate reasonable doubt, we can take a theory regarding the phenomena to be well supported by experiment. When such strategies are able to fully mitigate reasonable doubt, we can take a theory regarding the phenomena to be established by experiment. There are good reasons to expect the next generation of analogue experiments to provide genuine knowledge of unmanipulable and inaccessible phenomena such that the relevant theories can be understood as well supported. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘The next generation of analogue gravity experiments’.

中文翻译：

---

论实验知识的局限性

为了划定实验知识的界限，我们探讨了所谓实验的界限。通过引用天体物理学和模拟引力的科学实践例子，我们证明从实验中获得的某些现象知识的可靠性不受目标现象的可操作性或可访问性的限制。相反，实验知识的局限性是由我们所谓的“归纳三角测量”策略的可用程度决定的：也就是说，通过诉诸一个或多个来验证源-目标推理中涉及的归纳推理模式。独特且独立的归纳推理模式。当这些策略能够部分减轻合理怀疑时，我们就可以采取一种得到实验充分支持的关于该现象的理论。当这些策略能够充分消除合理怀疑时，我们就可以通过实验来建立关于现象的理论。我们有充分的理由期望下一代模拟实验能够提供有关无法操纵和无法访问的现象的真正知识，以便相关理论能够被理解并得到很好的支持。本文是“下一代模拟重力实验”讨论会议问题的一部分。