{"id":"8dd96665-c5cb-4760-8c88-2e93f6080798","arxiv_id":"2505.08340","paper_version":1,"verdict":"ACCEPT","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":6.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":0,"one_line_summary":"A philosophy of science case study showing that some astrophysical images, such as the Stellar Graveyard plot, function primarily as imaginative aids rather than argumentative evidence.","lead":"This philosophy of science paper argues that the Stellar Graveyard plot, a popular diagram of neutron star and black hole masses, is included in astrophysics papers mainly to help readers picture the objects, not to prove a point. It applies an established theory of imagery as an 'aid to the imagination' to astrophysical examples and links this role to scientific understanding.","discovery_kind":"new_application","skeptic_critique":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"The inference from textual non-use to a primarily imaginative function is the weakest link; a closer reading of Mandel and Farmer (2022) suggests the figure may function as an evidentiary display of observed masses, which weakens the central dichotomy.","rationale":"The reader's weakest_assumption correctly identifies the inference from textual non-use to non-argumentative function as the pivot of the paper. My analysis stresses that this inference is not just a minor limitation but the main load-bearing step: if the Stellar Graveyard is often used to support claims about the mass range and population of black holes, then the dichotomy between 'scientific argument' and 'imagination aid' collapses, and the paper's central conclusion is at least overstated. The paper already acknowledges this limitation in Section 2.4, but the acknowledgement is not enough: the argument requires a more systematic survey of how the figure is used in the cited literature. The empirical check I propose would settle the matter by testing whether the figure is consistently cited as evidence for specific claims. If the test shows that the figure is usually just a display, the paper's claim survives; if not, the author would need to revise the claim to a weaker one (e.g., 'these images can also function as imagination aids').","tokens_in":23674,"tokens_out":1611,"duration_ms":14139,"concrete_test":"Select 10 papers that use the Stellar Graveyard (e.g., Mandel and Farmer 2022; Miller and Yunes 2019; Bodensteiner et al. 2022; Bailes et al. 2021; Waldrop 2022). For each, list every sentence that refers to the figure or to the data shown in it (e.g., 'the masses of the black-hole binaries observed to date are shown in Fig. 1'). Determine whether the sentence makes a claim about the population (e.g., mass range, mass gap, comparison between EM and GW black holes) that the figure supports. If in a majority of cases the figure is cited as support for a specific population claim, the paper's inference that the figure is not part of the scientific argument is weakened.","verdict_should_be":"CONDITIONAL","load_bearing_attack":"The central argument in Section 2.4 depends on showing that the Stellar Graveyard is not propositional (Perini) and not a model (Downes), so its main function must be imaginative (Meynell). The key evidence is that Mandel and Farmer (2022) only state that masses 'are shown in Fig. 1' without tying the figure to analysis. But the paper does not examine whether the figure, in the context of a review of binary black hole mergers, serves as a dataset display that directly supports a range of claims about the observed population (e.g., the existence of a mass gap, the mass range of detected black holes, the comparison with X-ray binaries). The fact that the text does not explicitly re-describe all the data in the figure is not sufficient to establish that the figure is not part of the argument; it may be doing communicative and epistemic work by displaying the evidence base that the review summarizes. If the figure is a non-optional display of the relevant data points, then its function is at least partly propositional, and the claim that 'the main function is to evoke mental imagery' is unsupported. The author also treats 'sub-optimal for precise mass distribution analysis' as implying 'not propositional', but a figure can be a sub-optimal display and still be a truth-bearing summary of observations. The argument would be strengthened if it showed that the figure is not needed for any claim in the papers that use it; the paper only shows that it is not used as the primary quantitative evidence for the mass distribution, but does not rule out other evidentiary roles.","agreement_with_reader":"agree"},"referee_report":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","summary":"The paper investigates the function of astrophysical images that appear in scientific articles but are not evidently load-bearing for the argument, using the 'Stellar Graveyard' plot as the central case. It compares three philosophical accounts: Perini's propositional account (images as truth-bearers), Downes's account (images as models or model descriptions), and Meynell's account (images as aids to the visual imagination, or 'image-ination'). The author argues that the Stellar Graveyard is sub-optimal for displaying the mass distribution, that the citing texts do not use it as evidence in a detailed analysis, and that its main function is therefore to prompt mental imagery of merging black holes, thereby furthering scientific understanding. The paper then connects this function to De Regt's notion of intelligibility and Meynell's account of understanding as manipulation of spatial/causal structure, and offers four further examples of astrophysical imagery allegedly exhibiting the same function. It concludes that such imagery should not be dismissed as decorative because it supports understanding through mental simulation.","tokens_in":23970,"tokens_out":7152,"duration_ms":71193,"significance":"If the argument succeeds, the paper makes a useful contribution to the philosophy of scientific imagery by providing a positive, non-decorative account of figures that are not necessary for an article's propositional argument. It brings a concrete and well-chosen astrophysics case study into the discussion, and its careful comparison of Perini, Downes, and Meynell is philosophically instructive. The author is appropriately cautious in acknowledging that images can have multiple functions and that the categories may overlap. The paper is clearly written and engages seriously with the cited literature. The main weakness is that the central classification of the Stellar Graveyard as primarily imaginative rests on a questionable inference from textual non-use, and the prevalence claim is supported by only a handful of selected examples. These issues are addressable in revision without undermining the broader philosophical point that Meynell's framework illuminates an underappreciated class of scientific imagery.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The central claim that the Stellar Graveyard's main function is to evoke mental imagery depends on the inference that because the figure is not explicitly used in the authors' analysis, it is not part of the scientific argument. The evidence offered from Mandel and Farmer (2022, p. 3) is that they write 'The masses of the black-hole binaries observed to date are shown in Fig. 1, along with masses inferred from X-ray binary observations.' The paper takes this as showing the figure is 'a mere display.' But in a review article, displaying the observed sample is itself a form of evidentiary support: the figure presents the data on which subsequent claims about the population are based. The sentence 'Specific system properties are discussed below' suggests that the figure establishes the sample under discussion, not that the figure is disconnected from the analysis. To sustain the dichotomy between 'propositional' and 'imaginative,' the author would need to show that no inference in the citing papers depends on the figure, or that the figure could be removed without loss. As written, the 'main function' claim is under-supported; at minimum it should be weakened to 'an important function,' or supplemented with direct evidence such as authors' explicit statements of intent or cases where the figure is used with no data-display role at all.","section":"2.4"},{"comment":"The argument that the Stellar Graveyard is not a propositional image because it is 'sub-optimal for scientific purposes' (p. 13) conflates epistemic usefulness with truth-bearing. Perini's account does not require that a visual representation be the best possible display of the data; a figure can be a truth-bearer while being less informative than an alternative. The fact that a histogram better reveals the mass gap does not show that the individual plotted masses in the Stellar Graveyard do not make true claims about the observed objects. Similarly, the appeal to 'significantly greater support' from other displays concerns degrees of evidential strength, not whether the Stellar Graveyard has propositional content. To exclude Perini's account, the author must show that the figure does not represent a state of affairs at all, or that it is never used to support a claim. The current argument risks a false dichotomy between 'optimal evidence' and 'imaginative aid.'","section":"2.4"},{"comment":"The claim that imaginative imagery is 'prevalent in astrophysical articles' (Introduction, p. 4) is not supported by the evidence provided. The paper presents four examples (the Stellar Graveyard, gravitational-wave merger diagrams, Van den Heuvel diagrams, and one supernova schematic), each analyzed through the same inference from textual non-use. This is a selection of case studies, not a survey; it can establish that such imagery exists, but not that it is prevalent across the field. The author's own phrasing elsewhere ('in my estimation', 'appears to exhibit') is more cautious and is consistent with the evidence. To make the prevalence claim, the paper would need a systematic search strategy (e.g., sampling a defined set of journals and classifying figures) or a reframing of the goal as showing that Meynell's account illuminates a class of underappreciated images. Without such support, the prevalence claim should be withdrawn or explicitly reduced to an existence claim.","section":"3.3"}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"There is a typo in the final paragraph: 'this category pf' should be 'this category of.' Also, in the acknowledgments, 'Iacknowledgesupport' is missing spaces and should be 'I acknowledge support.'","section":"p. 28"},{"comment":"The phrase 'the figure is designed sub-optimally for this purpose' (p. 12) attributes a design intention that is not established; consider 'the figure is sub-optimal for this purpose' to avoid implying deliberate choice.","section":"2.4"},{"comment":"The claim that De Regt's notion of intelligibility is 'somewhat black and white' (p. 18) is presented as an interpretation, but De Regt's criterion ('can recognize qualitatively characteristic consequences') could itself be read as admitting degrees. The author's proposed modification is reasonable, but it would benefit from a brief acknowledgment that this is a substantive interpretive choice rather than a neutral observation.","section":"3.2"},{"comment":"For Figure 5a, the statement that the authors 'do not even mention the black hole images in their main text' (p. 21) is true of the quoted sentence, but the figure is still part of the paper and is reproduced alongside the waveform. This example illustrates the general difficulty of inferring function from what is said about a figure, and the point would be stronger with a citation to the figure caption or a discussion of how the figure is presented.","section":"3.3"}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"The paper is clearly written and the philosophical framework is applied with care. The major comments concern the evidential support for the central classification of the Stellar Graveyard and the prevalence claim; both are addressable by qualifying the claims or providing additional evidence. I see no issue of circularity or novelty disclosure. The paper is well suited to the journal's scope in the history and philosophy of science. I recommend major revision rather than rejection because the core philosophical insight is valuable and the identified weaknesses are fixable within the manuscript's scope."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","letter":"Paul Disberg's paper is a careful, readable contribution to the philosophy of scientific imagery. It does something genuinely new: it takes Meynell's account of images as props for the imagination—developed mostly around thought experiments and Feynman diagrams—and tests it on the Stellar Graveyard plot and related astrophysical figures. The comparison of Perini, Downes, and Meynell is fair, and the readings of the figures are plausible. The paper also makes a useful negative point: not every figure in a scientific paper is doing argumentative work, and dismissing such images as merely decorative misses their role in communicating understanding.\n\nThe soft spot is exactly where the stress-test puts its finger. Section 2.4 infers from the fact that Mandel and Farmer (2022) do not explicitly tie their Stellar Graveyard figure to quantitative analysis that the figure is not part of the scientific argument. That is too quick. A review article can use a figure to display the observed masses as an evidence base even when the text does not re-describe every data point. The figure may be sub-optimal for mass distribution analysis but still function as a truth-bearing summary of observations. If so, the dichotomy between propositional and imaginative is not clean, and the claim that the 'main function' is to evoke mental imagery is not established for this example. The author does hedge with 'may not be necessary' and says images can have multiple functions, but the central argument leans on the non-use inference more than it should.\n\nThat said, the flaw is not load-bearing. The paper's broader point—that some astrophysical images are best understood as aids to the visual imagination—survives in a weaker, more qualified form. The author explicitly allows mixed functions, and the other examples (especially the black hole merger diagrams and Van den Heuvel diagrams) are more convincing cases of images that prompt mental simulation rather than carry evidence. The paper is honest about its scope and acknowledges the selected nature of the examples.\n\nWho is this for? Philosophers of science working on scientific representation, and science communicators who want a better vocabulary for popular figures. It will not reorganize the field, but it is a solid specialist contribution. I would send it to a serious referee rather than desk reject. My own verdict would be 'revise' rather than 'accept as is': tighten the Stellar Graveyard argument, address the evidentiary-display reading of Mandel and Farmer, and soften the dichotomy accordingly.","headline":"A solid, limited contribution to philosophy of scientific imagery; the Stellar Graveyard argument overreaches on the non-use inference but the broader point about imaginative aids survives.","tokens_in":24485,"tokens_out":3489,"would_cite":false,"duration_ms":32096,"reading_group":"maybe","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":[],"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"The paper argues that the Stellar Graveyard plot and similar astrophysical figures function primarily as aids to the visual imagination, evoking mental images of merging black holes, rather than as evidence-bearing or model-descriptive…","keywords":["scientific imagery","visual imagination","scientific understanding","Stellar Graveyard plot","astrophysics","image-ination","philosophy of science","gravitational waves"],"falsifier":"A controlled study where readers see either the Stellar Graveyard plot or an equivalent histogram of the same black hole masses, then answer questions about the spatial geometry and causal sequence of a merger; if the plot yields no measurable advantage in such mental-simulation tasks, the claim that its main function is to aid the imagination would be undercut.","tokens_in":23483,"feed_emoji":"🔭","tokens_out":8167,"duration_ms":72519,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"Scientific articles are filled with figures, and philosophers usually ask how figures support the article's argument. This paper uses the well-known Stellar Graveyard plot—a scatter of observed neutron star and black hole masses—to argue that some astrophysical images are not primarily argumentative at all. Drawing on a philosophical account of images as prompts for the imagination, it claims the plot's main function is to help readers form mental images of binary black holes spiraling in and merging, and that this imaginative prompting contributes to scientific understanding by letting readers mentally simulate spatial structure and causal relations. The paper argues this function is widespread in astrophysical literature, giving examples from gravitational-wave detections, binary stellar evolution diagrams, and supernova schematics. The upshot is that such images should not be dismissed as decorative, because they carry part of the work of understanding.","feed_headline":"Stellar Graveyard plot sparks imagination, paper argues","feed_subtitle":"Why astrophysicists keep using a figure that is bad for showing data: it helps readers picture merging black holes.","key_machinery":"The central object is the philosophical category of 'imaginative images'—figures whose main job is to prompt the reader's visual imagination, in the sense developed by Letitia Meynell from Kendall Walton's notion of 'props' in games of make-believe. The mechanism is the 'principles of generation': shared cognitive capacities, habits, and background beliefs that let an actual image ignite a corresponding mental image, which the reader can then manipulate, adding motion or running what-if scenarios. The paper applies this machinery to the Stellar Graveyard plot: the plot's circles and merger arrows are a prop that evokes mental imagery of a binary black hole merger, and the claim is that this imaginative prompting is what makes the figure valuable despite its poor performance as a data display.","core_discovery":"The paper's central claim is that the Stellar Graveyard plot is best understood not as a propositional image (a truth-bearing piece of evidence) nor as a model or model-description, but as an aide to what it calls the 'image-ination': a prop that prompts readers to form and manipulate mental images of two black holes orbiting, emitting gravitational waves, and merging into a heavier black hole. The author argues that because the plot is a sub-optimal way to display the mass distribution—the horizontal axis is arbitrary and population structure is hard to read—and because authors often cite it without tying it to analysis, its value must lie elsewhere. That elsewhere is the imagination: by showing black holes as individual circles connected by merger arrows, the figure makes it easy to picture the spatial configuration and the causal story behind the observed gravitational-wave signal. This imaginative function is linked to scientific understanding through the idea that understanding consists partly in grasping spatial structures and causal relationships and in being able to run hypothetical 'what if' scenarios; images that spark such mental simulation thereby further understanding. The same function is claimed to appear in other astrophysical figures, including merger schematics accompanying gravitational-wave signals, Van den Heuvel binary-evolution diagrams, and simplified supernova diagrams.","pith_inferences":["The argument implies a testable empirical prediction: readers given the Stellar Graveyard plot should be better at answering questions about merger geometry and causal sequence than readers given only a histogram of the same masses.","The 'absence of explicit reference' criterion could be extended to other fields: any figure that is sub-optimal for data display but consistently included in a literature may be doing imaginative work, offering a heuristic for identifying props elsewhere in science.","If the imaginative function is as central as argued, then image choice in scientific papers becomes partly an engineering problem of matching a prop to an audience's existing principles of generation, which could connect to science communication and education research.","The claim might be sharpened by asking whether the prop matters most for novices; experts may already have the mental image and may use the figure as a mnemonic or rhetorical marker rather than as a genuine imaginative prompt."],"forward_implications":["The Stellar Graveyard plot should be recognized as an imagination aid, not a flawed data graphic; replacing it with a histogram would miss its function.","A similar reading applies to figures that accompany gravitational-wave signals, Van den Heuvel binary-evolution diagrams, and simplified supernova schematics: they can further understanding even when the text never explicitly uses them in the analysis.","Philosophical accounts of scientific imagery that focus only on truth-bearing or model-resemblance will systematically underdescribe a class of images whose value is imaginative.","Because mental imagery can support the kind of qualitative understanding the paper describes, including such images is a legitimate way for authors to make theories intelligible to readers.","If the account is right, philosophers of science should treat imaginative imagery as a genuine part of scientific communication rather than as decoration."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Supplies the imaginative-images account and the Feynman-diagram analogy on which the Stellar Graveyard argument is built.","marker":"Meynell (2017, 2018, 2020)"},{"why":"Provides the key example of the Stellar Graveyard being referenced as a mere display of masses, motivating the central question.","marker":"Mandel and Farmer (2022)"},{"why":"The propositional-images account that the paper argues is insufficient for the Stellar Graveyard.","marker":"Perini (2005a,b, 2012)"},{"why":"The images-as-models account that is likewise argued to be insufficient.","marker":"Downes (2009, 2011, 2012)"},{"why":"Supplies the notions of props and principles of generation that underpin the imaginative-image account.","marker":"Walton (1990)"},{"why":"Provides the notion of intelligibility and understanding that connects imaginative imagery to scientific understanding.","marker":"De Regt (2017)"},{"why":"Provides the first gravitational-wave merger figure, used as an example of imaginative imagery not explicitly referenced in the text.","marker":"LIGO Scientific Collaboration et al. (2016)"},{"why":"Provides a Van den Heuvel diagram example used to show that imaginative imagery is prevalent in astrophysical literature.","marker":"Tauris et al. (2017)"}],"fun_headline_variants":["Stellar Graveyard plot: an imagination aid, not a data display","Astrophysics images that aren't about data — they fuel imagination","Why the Stellar Graveyard plot helps you picture black holes","Imagination-boosting images in astrophysics: the Stellar Graveyard case","The Stellar Graveyard plot: for your mind's eye, not for data"],"cache_read_input_tokens":3200,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The argument rests on the inference that when a figure is not explicitly used in the text's analysis, its main function must be something other than argumentative—here, the prompting of mental imagery.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Stellar Graveyard plot: an imagination aid, not a data display","Astrophysics images that aren't about data — they fuel imagination","Why the Stellar Graveyard plot helps you picture black holes","Imagination-boosting images in astrophysics: the Stellar Graveyard case","The Stellar Graveyard plot: for your mind's eye, not for data"]},"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","effort":"low","cost_usd":0.000757,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":3359,"prompt_tokens":938,"completion_tokens":2421,"prompt_tokens_details":{"cached_tokens":384},"prompt_cache_hit_tokens":384,"prompt_cache_miss_tokens":554,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":2325}},"tokens_in":554,"tokens_out":2421,"duration_ms":17204,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":2325,"cache_read_input_tokens":384,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-08-15T21:56:57.283352+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"deepseek-v4-flash"},"falsifier":"A controlled study where readers see either the Stellar Graveyard plot or an equivalent histogram of the same black hole masses, then answer questions about the spatial geometry and causal sequence of a merger; if the plot yields no measurable advantage in such mental-simulation tasks, the claim that its main function is to aid the imagination would be undercut.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the imaginative-images account and the Feynman-diagram analogy on which the Stellar Graveyard argument is built."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"The propositional-images account that the paper argues is insufficient for the Stellar Graveyard."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"The images-as-models account that is likewise argued to be insufficient."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the notions of props and principles of generation that underpin the imaginative-image account."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Provides a Van den Heuvel diagram example used to show that imaginative imagery is prevalent in astrophysical literature."}],"review_version":1}