, Volume 190, Issue 2, pp 253–272 | Cite as

Strategies of model-building in condensed matter physics: trade-offs as a demarcation criterion between physics and biology?

  • Axel GelfertEmail author


This paper contrasts and compares strategies of model-building in condensed matter physics and biology, with respect to their alleged unequal susceptibility to trade-offs between different theoretical desiderata. It challenges the view, often expressed in the philosophical literature on trade-offs in population biology, that the existence of systematic trade-offs is a feature that is specific to biological models, since unlike physics, biology studies evolved systems that exhibit considerable natural variability. By contrast, I argue that the development of ever more sophisticated experimental, theoretical, and computational methods in physics is beginning to erode this contrast, since condensed matter physics is now in a position to measure, describe, model, and manipulate sample-specific features of individual systems—for example at the mesoscopic level—in a way that accounts for their contingency and heterogeneity. Model-building in certain areas of physics thus turns out to be more akin to modeling in biology than has been supposed and, indeed, has traditionally been the case.


Scientific models Trade-offs Model-building Mesoscopic models Complexity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bailer-Jones D. (2002) Scientists’ thought on scientific models. Perspectives on Science 10: 275–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batterman R. (2002) Asymptotics and the role of minimal models. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53: 21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bronfenbrenner M. (1966) A middlebrow introduction to economic methodology. In: Sherman R. K. (ed) The structure of economic science: Essays on methodology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 4–24Google Scholar
  4. Cartwright N. (1983) How the laws of physics lie. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cartwright N. (1999) Models and the limits of theory: Quantum Hamiltonians and the BCS model of superconductivity. In: Morgan M.S., Morrison M. (eds) Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 241–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. French S., Ladyman J. (1997) Superconductivity and structures: Revisiting the London account. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 28: 363–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gelfert A. (2009) Rigorous results, cross-model justification, and the transfer of empirical warrant: The case of many-body models in physics. Synthese 169: 497–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gelfert A. (2011) Mathematical formalisms in scientific practice: From denotation to model-based representation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42: 272–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldenfeld N. (1992) Lectures on phase transitions and the renormaliztion group. Boulder Westview Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Hamilton A. (2007) Laws of biology, laws of nature: Problems and (Dis)solutions. Philosophy Compass 2: 592–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Imry Y. (2008) Introduction to mesoscopic physics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Justus J. (2005) Qualitative scientific modeling and loop analysis. Philosophy of Science 72 (Proceedings): 1272–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Keller E. F. (2002) Making sense of life: Explaining biological development with models, metaphors, and machines. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Krieger M. (1981) Phenomenological and many-body models in natural science and social research. Fundamenta Scientiae 2: 425–431Google Scholar
  15. Lansbergen, G., et al. (2008). Transport-based dopant metrology in advanced FinFETs. IEEE IEDM 2008. Retrieved May 02, 2010, from Purdue e-Pubs
  16. Lee P. A., Stone A. D., Fukuyama H. (1987) Universal conductance fluctuations in metals: Effects of finite temperature, interactions, and magnetic field. Physical Review B 35(3): 1039–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leggett A. J. (2006) What do we know about high T c?. Nature Physics 2: 134–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levins R. (1966) The strategy of model building in population biology. American Scientist 54: 421–431Google Scholar
  19. Matthewson J. (2011) Trade-offs in model building: A more target-oriented approach. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42: 324–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Matthewson J., Weisberg M. (2009) The structure of tradeoffs in model building. Synthese 170: 169–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Niss M. (2009) History of the Lenz–Ising model 1950–1965: From irrelevance to relevance. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 63: 243–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Odenbaugh J. (2003) Complex systems,trade-offs,and theoretical population biology: Richard Levins’s “Strategy of Model Building in Population Biology” Revisted. Philosophy of Science 70: 1496–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Orzack S. H., Sober E. (1993) A critical assessment of Levins’s ‘The strategy of model building in population biology’ (1966). Quarterly Review of Biology 68: 533–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rowbottom D. P. (2009) Models in biology and physics: What’s the difference?. Foundations of Science 14: 281–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rueger A., Sharp W. D. (1996) Simple theories of a messy world: Truth and explanatory power in nonlinear dynamics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47: 93–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Suárez M., Cartwright N. (2008) Theories: Tools versus models. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 39: 62–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weisberg M. (2004) Qualitative theory and chemical explanation. Philosophy of Science 71: 1071–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wong J., Peter G., Dumas R. K., Kai L. (2009) Probing magnetic configurations in Co/Cu multilayered nanowires. Applied Physics Letters 94: 032504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yi S.-W. (2002) The nature of model-based understanding in condensed matter physics. Mind and Society 3: 81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyNational University of SingaporeSingaporeRepublic of Singapore

Personalised recommendations