, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 417–442 | Cite as

Scientific representation: A long journey from pragmatics to pragmatics

Bas C. van Fraassen: Scientific representation: Paradoxes of perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2008, xiv+408pp, £35.00 HB
  • James LadymanEmail author
  • Otávio BuenoEmail author
  • Mauricio SuárezEmail author
  • Bas C. van FraassenEmail author
Book Symposium

James Ladyman

Once again, van Fraassen has given us an incredibly rich, learned and profound book that will be studied and argued about for decades to come. The book is about scientific representation, but from the perspective of Bas van Fraassen’s empiricism this means “representation of the empirical phenomena” (1). He is keen to distance himself from the empiricist tradition that would interpret the latter notion in terms of mental representation, and instead focuses his attention on mathematical and material representations, and one main form of representation in which he is interested is the representational aspect of measurement. Following and extending the line of argument that we find in the work of Poincaré and Weyl among others, van Fraassen argues for the “essential indexical” (3) in science. This is a radical view that is at odds with the idea of objective inquiry that enables us to transcend our situation and describe the world independently of human beings, which is how...


  1. Bueno, O. 2005. Dirac and the dispensability of mathematics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 36: 465–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bueno, O. 2009. Mathematical fictionalism. In New waves in philosophy of mathematics, ed. O. Bueno, and Ø. Linnebo, 59–79. Hampshire: Palgrave-MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. French, S. 2003. A model-theoretic account of representation (or, I don’t know much about art, but I know it involves isomorphism). Philosophy of Science 70: 1472–1483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hacking, I. 1981. Do we see through a microscope? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 62: 305–322.Google Scholar
  5. Palade, G. 1955. A small particulate component of the cytoplasm. Journal of Biophysical and Biochemical Cytology 1: 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Sober, E. 1985. Constructive empiricism and the problem of aboutness. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 36: 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Suárez, M. 1999a. The role of models in the application of scientific theories: Epistemological implications. In Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science, ed. M. Morgan, and M. Morrison, 168–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Suárez, M. 1999b. Theories, models, and representations. In Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery, ed. L. Magnani, et al., 75–83. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Suárez, M. 2003. Scientific representation: Against similarity and isomorphism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17: 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Suárez, M. 2004. An inferential conception of scientific representation. Philosophy of Science 71: 767–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Suárez, M. 2005. The semantic view, empirical adequacy and application. Crítica 37: 29–63.Google Scholar
  12. Suárez, M. 2010. Scientific representation. Philosophy Compass 5: 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. van Fraassen, B.C. 1967. Meaning relations among predicates. Nous 1: 160–179.Google Scholar
  14. van Fraassen, B.C. 1969. Meaning relations and modalities. Nous 3: 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. van Fraassen, B.C. 1977. The only necessity is verbal necessity. Journal of Philosophy 74: 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. van Fraassen, B.C. 1980. The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. van Fraassen, B.C. 1985. Empiricism in the philosophy of science. In Images of science, ed. P. Churchland and C. Hooker, 245–305. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. van Fraassen, B.C. 1994. Interpretation of science: Science as interpretation. In Physics and our view of the world, ed. J. Hilgevoord, 169–187. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van Fraassen, B.C. 1997. Structure and perspective: Philosophical perplexity and paradox. In Logic and scientific methods, vol. 1, ed. M.L. Dalla Chiara, et al., 511–530. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  20. van Fraassen, B.C. 2000. The theory of tragedy and of science: Does nature have narrative structure? In Aristotle and contemporary science, vol. 1, ed. D. Sfendoni-Mentzou, 31–59. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  21. van Fraassen, B.C. 2004. Science as representation: Flouting the criteria. Philosophy of Science 71: 794–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Fraassen, B.C. 2006a. Representation: The problem for structuralism. Philosophy of Science 73: 536–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. van Fraassen, B.C. 2006b. Replies. In Bas C. van Fraassen: The fortunes of empiricism, ed. A. Berg-Hildebrand, and C. Suhm, 125–171. Frankfurt: ontos verlag.Google Scholar
  24. van Fraassen, B.C. 2007. Structuralism(s) about science: Some common problems. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Suppl. LXXXI: 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. van Fraassen, B.C. 2009. The perils of Perrin, at the hands of philosophers. Philosophical Studies 143: 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA
  3. 3.Department of Logic and Philosophy of ScienceComplutense University of MadridMadridSpain
  4. 4.Philosophy DepartmentSan Francisco State UniversitySan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations