Skip to main content

Rigorous results, cross-model justification, and the transfer of empirical warrant: the case of many-body models in physics

Synthese volume 169, pages 497–519 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

This paper argues that a successful philosophical analysis of models and simulations must accommodate an account of mathematically rigorous results. Such rigorous results may be thought of as genuinely model-specific contributions, which can neither be deduced from fundamental theory nor inferred from empirical data. Rigorous results provide new indirect ways of assessing the success of models and simulations and are crucial to understanding the connections between different models. This is most obvious in cases where rigorous results map different models on to one another. Not only does this put constraints on the extent to which performance in specific empirical contexts may be regarded as the main touchstone of success in scientific modelling, it also allows for the transfer of warrant across different models. Mathematically rigorous results can thus come to be seen as not only strengthening the cohesion between scientific strategies of modelling and simulation, but also as offering new ways of indirect confirmation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Bailer-Jones D.M. (2003) When scientific models represent. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17: 59–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batterman R.W. (2001) The devil in the details. Asymptotic reasoning in explanation, reduction and emergence. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Batterman R.W. (2002) Asymptotics and the role of minimal models. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53: 21–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter R.J. (1982) Exactly solved models in statistical mechanics. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Boumans M. (1999) Built-in justification. In: Morrison M., Morgan M.S. (eds) Models as mediators. Perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 68–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright N. (1999) The dappled world. A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich F., Moretti L. (2005) On coherent sets and the transmission of confirmation. Philosophy of Science 72: 403–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Boer J.H., Verwey E.J.W. (1937) Semi-conductors with partially and with completely filled 3d-lattice bands. Proceedings of the Physical Society (Extra Part) 49: 59–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domb C. (1996) The critical point. A historical introduction to the modern theory of critical phenomena. Taylor and Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Eells E., Fitelson B. (2000) Measuring confirmation and evidence. The Journal of Philosophy 97: 663–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ejima S., Gebhard F., Nishimoto S. (2005) Tomonaga–Luttinger parameters for doped Mott insulators. Europhysics Letters 70: 492–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fermi E. (1935) Sulla quantizzazione del gas perfetto monoatomico. Rendiconti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei 6: 145–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitelson B. (2003) A probabilistic theory of coherence. Analysis 63: 194–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebhard, F. (1997). The Mott metal–insulator transition: Models and methods. Springer tracts in modern physics (Vol. 137). Berlin: Springer.

  • Gelfert A. (2005) Mathematical rigor in physics: Putting exact results in their place. Philosophy of Science 72: 723–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giere R.N. (1999) Using models to represent reality. In: Magnani L., Nersessian N.J., Thagard P. (eds) Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 41–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths R.B. (1972) Rigorous results and theorems. In: Domb C., Green M.S. (eds) Phase transitions and critical phenomena. Academic Press, New York, pp 8–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidelberger M. (2006) Applying models in fluid dynamics. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20: 49–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard J. (1963) Electron correlations in narrow energy bands. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences 276: 238–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes R.I.G. (1999) The Ising model, computer simulation, and universal physics. In: Morrison M., Morgan M.S. (eds) Models as mediators. Perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 97–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys P. (2004) Extending ourselves. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Laudan L., Leplin J. (1991) Empirical equivalence and underdetermination. The Journal of Philosophy 88: 449–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moretti L. (2007) Ways in which coherence is confirmation conducive. Synthese 157: 309–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison M.C. (1998) Modelling nature: Between physics and the physical world. Philosophia Naturalis 35: 65–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison M. (1999) Models as autonomous agents. In: Morrison M., Morgan M.S. (eds) Models as mediators. Perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 36–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison M., Morgan M.S. (1999) Models as mediating instruments. In: Morrison M., Morgan M.S. (eds) Models as mediators. Perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 10–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Mott N. (1937) Discussion of the paper by De Boer and Verwey. Proceedings of the Physical Society (Extra Part) 49: 72–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolting, W. (2000). Ferromagnetism and electronic correlations. In F. Mancini (Ed.), Lectures on the physics of highly correlated electron systems. AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 527, pp. 118–225). Melville: American Institute of Physics Publishing.

  • Okasha S. (1997) Laudan and Leplin on empirical equivalence. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48: 251–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson E.J. (2005) Against coherence: Truth, probability, and justification. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Shogenji T. (2001) The role of coherence in epistemic justification. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79: 90–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner M. (1989) The application of mathematics to natural science. The Journal of Philosophy 86(9): 449–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner M., Villain J., Windsor C.G. (1976) Theoretical and experimental studies on one-dimensional magnetic systems. Advances in Physics 25: 87–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suárez M. (1999) Theories, models, and representations. In: Magnani L., Nersessian N.J., Thagard P. (eds) Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 75–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Toschi A., Barone P., Capone M., Castellani C. (2005) Pairing and superconductivity from weak to strong coupling in the attractive Hubbard model. New Journal of Physics 7(7): 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Tusch M.A., Szczech Y.H., Logan D.E. (1996) Magnetism in the Hubbard model: An effective spin Hamiltonian approach. Physical Review B 53(9): 5505–5517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson A.H. (1931) The theory of electronic semiconductors. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences 133: 458–491

    Google Scholar 

  • Winsberg E. (1999) Sanctioning models: The epistemology of simulation. Science in Context 12: 275–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winsberg E. (2003) Simulated experiments: Methodology for a virtual world. Philosophy of Science 70: 105–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi S.W. (2002) The nature of model-based understanding in condensed matter physics. Mind and Society 3: 81–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, National University of Singapore, 3 Arts Link, Singapore, 117570, Singapore

    Axel Gelfert

Authors
  1. Axel Gelfert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Axel Gelfert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gelfert, A. Rigorous results, cross-model justification, and the transfer of empirical warrant: the case of many-body models in physics. Synthese 169, 497–519 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9431-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9431-6

Keywords

  • Models as mediators
  • Indirect confirmation
  • Coherence
  • Model-based representation
  • Simulation
  • Many-body models