Mind & Society

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 81–91 | Cite as

The nature of model-based understanding in condensed matter physics

  • Sang Wook Yi


The paper studies the nature of “understanding” in condensed matter physics (CMP), mediated by the successful employment of its models. I first consider two obvious candidates for the criteria of model-based understanding, Van Fraassen's sense of “empirical adequacy” and Hacking's “instrumental utility”, and conclude that both are unsatisfactory. Inspired by Hasok Chang's recent proposal to reformulate realism as the pursuit of ontological plausibility in our system of knowledge, we may require the model under consideration to be understood (or intelligible) before claiming model-based understanding. Here the understanding of a model typically consists of the following: figuring out at least one plausible (preferably realistic) physical mechanism for the model, determining the theoretical consequences of the model by mathematically “probing” it and developing our physical intuitions about the model. I consider the q-state Potts model to illustrate. After having understood a model, we may employ the model to understand its target phenomena in the world. This is done by “matching” one of the interpretative models of the model with the central features of the phenomena. The matching should be motivated (ideally both theoretically and empirically) in the sense that we have good reason to believe that the central features of the phenomena can be thought of as having more or less the same structure as postulated by the interpretative model. In conclusion, I propose a two-stage account of model-based understanding in CMP: (1) understanding of a model and (2) matching a target phenomenon with a well-motivated interpretative model of the model. Empirical success and instrumental utility both play their roles in the evaluation of how successful the model is, but are not the essential part of model-based understanding.


theoretical understanding target phenomena intelligibility plausible physical mechanism mathematical probing motivated interpretative models matching 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Cartwright, N. (1983)How the laws of physics lie (Oxford, Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
  2. Cartwright, N. (1999a) Models and the limits of theory: quantum hamiltonians and the BCS models of superconductivity, Morgan & Morrison (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). 1999, pp. 241–81.Google Scholar
  3. Cartwright, N. (1999b)The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  4. Chaikin, P.M. & Lubensky, T.C. (1995)Principles of condensed matter physics (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  5. Chang, H. (1999) History and philosophy of science as a continuation of science by other means,Science and Education, 8, pp. 413–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, H. (2001) How to take realism beyond foot-stamping,Philosophy, 76, pp. 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang, H. (forthcoming) Spirit, air and quicksilver: The search for the “real” scale of temperature,Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences.Google Scholar
  8. Craig, E. (Ed.) (1998)Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy, version 1.0 (London-New York, Routledge).Google Scholar
  9. Darden, L. (Ed.) (1997)PSA 1996, Vol. 2 (East Lansing, Philosophy of Science Association).Google Scholar
  10. Giere, R. (1988)Explaining science: A cognitive approach (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  11. Davies, P. (Ed.) (1989)The new physics (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  12. Domb, C. (1985). Critical phenomena: A brief historical survey,Contemp. Phys., 26, pp. 49–72.Google Scholar
  13. Domb, C. (1996)The critical point: A historical introduction to the modern theory of critical phenomena (London, Taylor and Francis).Google Scholar
  14. Goldenfeld, N. (1992)Lectures on phase transitions and the renormalization group (Reading MA, Addison-Wesley).Google Scholar
  15. Hacking, I. (1983)Representing and interveting: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science (Cambridge, Cambrige University Press).Google Scholar
  16. Hughes, R.I.G. (1996) The semantic view of theories, inEncyclopedia of applied physics (New York, VCH Publishers), vol. 17, pp. 175–80.Google Scholar
  17. Hughes, R.I.G. (1997) Models and representation, Darden 1997, pp. S325-S336.Google Scholar
  18. Lakatos, I. (1970) Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes, Lakatos & Musgrave. 1970, pp. 91–196.Google Scholar
  19. Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. (Eds.) (1970)Criticism and the growth of knowledge (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  20. Leibniz, G.W. (1692) Critical remarks concerning the general part of Descartes, inMethodology and other philosophical essays, trans. and ed. in 1985 by Paul Schrecker and Anne Martin Schrecker (New York, Macmillan).Google Scholar
  21. Lloyd E.A. (1998) Models, in Craig 1998.Google Scholar
  22. Morgan, M.S. (1999) Learning from models, in Morgan & Morrison 1999.Google Scholar
  23. Morgan, M.S. & Morrison, M. (Eds) (1999)Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  24. Morrison, M. (1999) Models as autonomous agents, in Morgan & Morrison 1999. pp. 38–65.Google Scholar
  25. Plischke, M. & Bergersen, B. (1989)Equilibrium statistical physics (Englewood Cliffs NJ, Prentice Hall)Google Scholar
  26. Savage, C.W. (Ed.) (1990)Scientific theories (Minneapolis MN, University of Minnesota Press).Google Scholar
  27. Thouless, D. (1989) Condensed matter physics in less than three dimensions, in Davies 1989. pp. 209–35.Google Scholar
  28. Wu, F.Y. (1982) The Potts model,Review of Modern Physics, 54, pp. 235–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yi, S.W. (2000)How to model macroscopic worlds: Towards the philosophy of condensed matter physics, PhD thesis (London, University of London).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Rosenberg & Sellier 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sang Wook Yi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific MethodLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK

Personalised recommendations