Scientific misrepresentation and guides to ontology: the need for representational code and contents
- 280 Downloads
In this paper I show how certain requirements must be set on any tenable account of scientific representation, such as the requirement allowing for misrepresentation. I then continue to argue that two leading accounts of scientific representation—the inferential account and the interpretational account—are flawed for they do not satisfy such requirements. Through such criticism, and drawing on an analogy from non-scientific representation, I also sketch the outline of a superior account. In particular, I propose to take epistemic representations to be intentional objects that come with reference, semantic contents and a representational code, and I identify faithful representations as representations that act as guides to ontology.
KeywordsRepresentation Methodology Ontological guides Surrogative reasoning Phase transitions Intentionality
Parts of this paper were presented at the “Ontology and Methodology” conference at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and at the “Work in Progress” workshop of the graduate students of the History and Philosophy of Science department at University of Pittsburgh. I am grateful to those audiences for stimulating discussions. I would especially like to thank John Norton, David de Bruijn, Michael Miller, Erik Angner, Isabel Ranner, Greg Gadenberger, and two anonymous referees for their excellent insight and comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Thank you to Naharin Shech for help with figures. Special thanks also to Ben Jantzen, Deborah Mayo, and Lydia Patton for editing this volume of Synthese.
- Batterman, R. (2002). The devil in the details: Asymptotic reasoning in explanation, reduction, and emergence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Bolinska, A. (2013). Epistemic representation, informativeness and the aim of faithful representation. Synthese, 190, 219–234.Google Scholar
- Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Chomaz, P., Gulminelli, F., & Duflot, V. (2001). Topology of event distributions as a generalized definition of phase transitions in finite systems. Physical Review E, 64, 046114.Google Scholar
- Frege, G. (1892). On sense and reference. In G. Frege, P. Geach, & M. Black (Eds.), Translations from the philosophical writings (pp. 56–78). Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1960.Google Scholar
- Frigg, R. (2006). Scientific representation and the semantic view of theories. Theoria, 55, 49–65.Google Scholar
- Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
- Hopkins, R. (2005). The speaking image: Visual communication and the nature of depiction. In M. Kieran (Ed.), Contemporary debates in aesthetics and the philosophy of art. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Jacob, P. (2010). Intentionality. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/.
- Mainwood, P. R. (2006). Is more different? Emergent properties in physics. PhD diss., Oxford University.Google Scholar
- Menon, T. and C. Callender. (2013). Turn and face the strange... Ch-ch-changes: Philosophical questions raised by phase transitions. In R. W. Batterman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Minkowski, H. (1908). Space and time. In H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, & H. Weyl (Eds.), Principle of relativity (pp. 75–91). New York: Dover; 1952.Google Scholar
- Norton, J. D. (2011). Analogy. Manuscript, http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/material_theory/Analogy.pdf.
- Shech, E. (2013). What is the paradox of phase transition? Philosophy of Science, 80, 1170–1181.Google Scholar
- Siewert, C. (2006). Consciousness and intentionality. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-intentionality/.
- Speaks, J. (2014). Theories of meaning. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning/.
- Stanley, H. E. (1971). Introduction to phase transitions and critical phenomena. new york and oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Stich, S., & Warfield, T. A. (1994). Mental representation: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Suárez, M. (2004). An inferential conception of scientific representation. Philosophy of Science, 71, 767–779.Google Scholar
- Suárez, M. (2010). Scientific Representation. Philosophy Compass, 5(1), 91–101.Google Scholar
- Swoyer, C. (1991). Structural representation and surrogative reasoning. Synthese, 87, 449–508; Suárez (2004).Google Scholar
- Warfield, T. A., & Stich, S. (1994). Introduction. In Stich and Warfield.Google Scholar
- Wollheim, R. (1987). Painting as an art. London and New York: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar