Advertisement

Journal for General Philosophy of Science

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 143–150 | Cite as

Do Renormalization Group Explanations Conform to the Commonality Strategy?

  • Alexander ReutlingerEmail author
Discussion

Abstract

Renormalization group (RG) explanations account for the astonishing phenomenon that microscopically very different physical systems display the same macro-behavior when undergoing phase-transitions. Among philosophers, this explanandum phenomenon is often described as the occurrence of a particular kind of multiply realized macro-behavior. In several recent publications, Robert Batterman denies that RG explanations account for this explanandum phenomenon by following (what I call) the commonality strategy, i.e. by identifying properties that microscopically very different physical systems have in common. Arguing against Batterman’s claim, I defend the view that RG explanations are in accord with the commonality strategy.

Keywords

Scientific explanation Multiple realization Universality Renormalization group explanation Statistical physics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Juha Saatsi, Markus Schrenk, and an audience in Leeds for their feedback. I am also grateful for receiving a fellowship from the Durham emergence project.

References

  1. Batterman, R. (2000). Multiple realizability and universality. British Journal for Philosophy of Science, 51, 115–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batterman, R. (2002). The devil in the details. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Batterman, R. (2015). Reduction and multiple realizability, unpublished manuscript. http://www.robertbatterman.org/docs/Spain-reduction.pdf.
  4. Batterman, R., & Rice, C. (2014). Minimal model explanation. Philosophy of Science, 81, 349–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butterfield, J. (2011). Less is different: Emergence and reduction reconciled. Foundations of Physics, 41, 1065–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cardy, J. (1996). Scaling and renormalization in statistical physics. Cambridge Lecture notes in physics, vol. 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dizadji-Bahmani, F., Frigg, R., & Hartmann, S. (2010). Who’s afraid of Nagelian reduction? Erkenntnis, 73, 393–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fisher, M. (1982). Scaling, university and renormalization group theory. In F. Hahne (Ed.), Critical phenomena: Lecture notes in physics (Vol. 186, pp. 1–139). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisher, M. (1998). Renormalization group theory: Its basis and formulation in statistical physics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 653–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fodor, J. (1997). Special sciences. Still autonomous after all these years. Philosophical Perspectives, 11, 149–163.Google Scholar
  11. Hüttemann, A., Kühn, R., & Terzidis, O. (2015). Stability, emergence and part-whole reduction. In B. Falkenburg & M. Morrison (Eds.), Why more is different: Philosophical issues in condensed matter physics and complex systems (pp. 169–200). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Lange, M. (2015). On ‘minimal model explanations’: A reply to Batterman and Rice. Philosophy of Science, 82, 292–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McComb, D. (2004). Renormalization methods. A guide for beginners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Menon, T., & Callender, C. (2013). Turn and face the strange … ch–ch–changes: Philosophical questions raised by phase transitions. In R. Batterman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of physics (pp. 189–223). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Morrison, M. (2012). Emergent physics and micro-ontology. Philosophy of Science, 79, 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Norton, J. (2012). Approximation and idealization: Why the difference matters. Philosophy of Science, 79, 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Papineau, D. (1993). Philosophical naturalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Reutlinger, A. (2014a). Why is there universal macro-behavior? Renormalization group explanation as non-causal explanation. Philosophy of Science, 81, 1157–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reutlinger, A. (2014b). Are causal facts really explanatorily emergent? Ladyman and Ross on higher-level causal facts and renormalization group explanation. Synthese. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-014-0530-2.
  20. Reutlinger, A. (2016). Is there a monist theory of causal and non-causal explanations? The counterfactual theory of scientific explanation. Philosophy of Science (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  21. Strevens, M. (2016). Complexity theory. In P. Humphreys (Ed.), The Oxford handbook for the philosophy of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  22. Wilson, K. (1983). The renormalization group and critical phenomena. Reviews of Modern Physics, 55, 583–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LMU Munich, Munich Center for Mathematical PhilosophieMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations