Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 196, Issue 11, pp 4605–4622 | Cite as

Constructing reality with models

  • Sim-Hui TeeEmail author
Article

Abstract

Scientific models are used to predict and understand the target phenomena in the reality. The kind of epistemic relationship between the model and the reality is always regarded by most of the philosophers as a representational one. I argue that, complementary to this representational role, some of the scientific models have a constructive role to play in altering and reconstructing the reality in a physical way. I hold that the idealized model assumptions and elements bestow the constructive force of a model on the reality. By recognizing the physical constructive force of some scientific models, the merit of these models could be judged by how successful they are in the reality construction, rather than by the traditional criterion of model-world representation.

Keywords

Models Reality Constructive models Instruments Idealized model elements Idealization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and feedback.

References

  1. Barberousse, A., & Ludwig, P. (2009). Models as fictions. In M. Suárez (Ed.), Fictions in science: Philosophical essays on modeling and idealization (pp. 56–73). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Beatty, J. (2017). Narrative possibility and narrative explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 62, 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bokulich, A. (2011). How scientific models can explain. Synthese, 180, 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boldyrev, I., & Ushakov, A. (2016). Adjusting the model to adjust the world: Constructive mechanisms in postwar general equilibrium theory. Journal of Economic Methodology, 23(1), 38–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bueno, O., & French, S. (2011). How theories represent. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62(4), 857–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cartwright, N. (1989). Nature’s capacities and their measurement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cartwright, N. (1999). Models and the limits of theory: Quantum Hamiltonians and the BCS models of superconductivity. In M. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science (pp. 241–281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, H., Bjerknes, M., Kumar, R., & Jay, E. (1994). Determination of the optimal aligned spacing between the Shine–Dalgarno sequence and the translation initiation codon of Escherichia coli mRNAs. Nucleic Acids Research, 22(23), 4953–4957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheon, D.-J., & Orsulic, S. (2011). Mouse models of cancer. Annual Review of Pathology, 6, 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craver, C. (2006). When mechanistic models explain. Synthese, 153, 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Donato Rodríguez, X., & Arroyo-Santos, A. (2012). The structure of idealization in biological theories: The case of the Wright–Fisher model. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 43(1), 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Donato Rodríguez, X., & Zamora Bonilla, J. (2009). Credibility, idealisation, and model building: An inferential approach. Erkenntnis, 70, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Francoeur, E. (2001). Molecular models and the articulation of structural constraints in chemistry. In U. Klein (Ed.), Tools and modes of representation in the laboratory sciences (pp. 95–115). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frigg, R. (2010). Models and fiction. Synthese, 172, 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giere, R. (1998). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Griesemer, J. R. (1990). Material models in biology. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 79–93.Google Scholar
  18. Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2013). Appraising models nonrepresentationally. Philosophy of Science, 80, 850–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hartmann, S. (1999). Models and stories in hadron physics. In M. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science (pp. 326–346). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hwang, I. Y., Koh, E., Wong, A., March, J. C., Bentley, W. E., Lee, Y. S., et al. (2017). Engineered probiotic Escherichia coli can eliminate and prevent Pseudomonas aeruginosa gut infection in animal models. Nature Communications, 8, 15028.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ibarra, A., & Mormann, T. (2006). Scientific theories as intervening representations. Theoria, 55, 21–38.Google Scholar
  23. Knuuttila, T., & Boon, M. (2011). How do models give us knowledge? The case of Carnot’s ideal heat engine. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 1(3), 309–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mäki, U. (2005). Models are experiments, experiments are models. Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(2), 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mäki, U. (2009). MISSing the world. Models as isolations and credible surrogate systems. Erkenntnis, 70, 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Merdanovic, M., Clausen, T., Kaiser, M., Huber, R., & Ehrmann, M. (2011). Protein quality control in the bacterial periplasm. Annual Review of Microbiology, 65, 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mishler, D., Topp, S., Reynoso, C., & Gallivan, J. (2010). Engineering bacteria to recognize and follow small molecules. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 21, 653–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mishra, B., Reiling, S., Zarena, D., & Wang, G. (2017). Host defense antimicrobial peptides as antibiotics: design and application strategies. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, 38, 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morgan, M. (2001). Models, stories and the economic world. Journal of Economic Methodology, 8(3), 361–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morgan, M. (2012). The world in the model: How economists work and think. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morgan, M. (2017). Narrative ordering and explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 62, 86–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morrison, M., & Morgan, M. (1999). Models as mediating instruments. In M. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science (pp. 10–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ochman, H., Lawrence, J., & Groisman, E. (2000). Lateral gene transfer and the nature of bacterial innovation. Nature, 405, 299–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pero, F., & Suárez, M. (2016). Varieties of misrepresentation and homomorphism. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 6(1), 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pincock, C. (2012). Mathematics and scientific representation. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ramasubbu, N., Thomas, L. M., Ragunath, C., & Kaplan, J. B. (2005). Structural analysis of Dispersin B, a biofilm-releasing glycoside hydrolase from the periodontopathogen Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans. Journal of Molecular Biology, 349, 475–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ratcliff, W., Denison, R., Borrello, M., & Travisano, M. (2012). Experimental evolution of multicellularity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(5), 1595–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rock, J. M., Hopkins, F. F., Chavez, A., Diallo, M., Chase, M. R., Gerrick, E. R., et al. (2017). Programmable transcriptional repression in mycobacteria using an orthogonal CRISPR interference platform. Nature Microbiology, 2, 16274.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rouse, J. (2009). Laboratory fictions. In M. Suárez (Ed.), Fictions in science: Philosophical essays on modeling and idealization (pp. 37–55). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Stathopoulos, T. (1984). Design and fabrication of a wind tunnel for building aerodynamics. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 16, 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Suárez, M. (2003). Scientific representation: Against similarity and isomorphism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17(3), 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Suarez, M. (2004). An inferential conception of scientific representation. Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 767–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sugden, R. (2000). Credible worlds: The status of theoretical models in economics. Journal of Economics Methodology, 7(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sugden, R. (2013). How fictional accounts can explain. Journal of Economic Methodology, 20(3), 237–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tassoni, R., van der Aart, L. T., Ubbink, M., van Wezel, G. P., & Pannu, N. S. (2017). Structural and functional characterization of the alanine racemase from Streptomyces coelicolor A3(2). Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 483(1), 122–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thomson-Jones, M. (2010). Missing systems and the face value practice. Synthese, 172, 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Toon, A. (2010). Models as make-believe. In R. Frigg & M. C. Hunter (Eds.), Beyond mimesis and convention: Representation in art and science (pp. 71–96). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Toon, A. (2012). Models as make-believe: Imagination, fiction and scientific representation. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wackett, L. (2011). Engineering microbes to produce biofuels. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 22, 388–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weber, M. (2014). Experimental modeling in biology: In vivo representation and stand-ins as modeling strategies. Philosophy of Science, 81(5), 756–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weisberg, M. (2007). Three kinds of idealization. The Journal of Philosophy, 104(12), 639–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weisberg, M. (2013). Simulation and similarity: Using models to understand the world. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Winsberg, E. (2006). Models of success versus the success of models: Reliability without truth. Synthese, 152, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yu, J. S., & Bagheri, N. (2016). Multi-class and multi-scale models of complex biological phenomena. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 39, 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Multimedia UniversityCyberjayaMalaysia

Personalised recommendations