The focus in the literature on scientific explanation has shifted in recent years towards model-based approaches. In recent work, Alisa Bokulich has argued that idealization has a central role to play in explanation. Bokulich claims that certain highly-idealized, structural models can be explanatory, even though they are not considered explanatory by causal, mechanistic, or covering law accounts of explanation. This paper focuses on Bokulich’s account in order to make the more general claim that there are problems with maintaining that a structural criterion can capture the way that highly-idealized models explain. This paper examines Bokulich’s claim that the structural model explanation of quantum wavefunction scarring, featuring semiclassical mechanics, is deeper than the explanation provided by the local quantum model. The challenge for Bokulich is to show that the semiclassical model answers a wider range of w-questions (what-if-things-had-been-different-questions), as this is her method of assessing structural information. I look at two reasonable approaches employing w-questions, and I argue that neither approach is ultimately satisfactory. Because structural similarity has preferences for more fundamental models, I argue that the local quantum model provides explanations that at least as deep as the semiclassical ones. The criterion either wrongly identifies all models as explanatory, or prefers models from fundamental theory. Either way, it cannot capture the way that highly-idealized models explain.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
For more information about the quantum models, simulations of the scarring phenomenon, and ergodic and unique ergodic properties of classical and quantum billiards, see Dettman and Georgiou (2010), Gutzwiller (1990), Heller (1984, 1986), Kaplan and Heller (1999), King (2009), McDonald and Kaufman (1979), Tao (2007), Tomsovic and Heller (1993).
Batterman, R. W. (1992). Quantum chaos and semiclassical mechanics. Proceedings of the Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1992(2), 50–65.
Batterman, R. W. (2002a). Asymptotics and the role of minimal models. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 53, 21–38.
Batterman, R. W. (2002b). The devil in the details. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Batterman, R. W. (2005). Critical phenomena and breaking drops: Infinite idealizations in physics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 36, 225–244.
Batterman, R. W., & Rice, C. C. (2014). Minimal model explanations. Philosophy of Science, 81(3), 349–376. doi:10.1086/676677.
Belot, G., & Jansson, L. (2010). Review of reexamining the quantum–classical relation: Beyond reductionism and pluralism, by A. Bokulich. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41, 81–83.
Bleher, S., Ott, E., & Grebogi, C. (1989). Routes to chaotic scattering. Physical Review Letters, 63(9), 919–922.
Bokulich, A. (2008). Reexamining the quantum–classical relation: Beyond reductionism and pluralism. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bokulich, A. (2011). How scientific models can explain. Synthese, 180(1), 33–45.
Bokulich, A. (2012). Distinguishing explanatory from nonexplanatory fictions. Philosophy of Science, 79(5), 725–737.
Bunimovich, L. (1974). The ergodic properties of certain billiards. Functional Analysis and its Applications, 8, 73–74.
Bunimovich, L. (1979). On the ergodic properties of nowhere dispersing billiards. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 65, 295–312.
Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Craver, C. (2006). Physical law and mechanistic explanation in the Hodgkin and Huxley model of the action potential. Philosophy of Science, 75(5), 1022–1033.
Dettman, C. P., & Georgiou, O. (2010). Open intermittent billiards: A dynamical window. Retrieved from http://iopscience.iop.org/1751-8121/labtalk-article/46000. Accessed 3 Jan 2015.
Dettman, C. P., & Georgiou, O. (2011). Open mushrooms: Stickiness revisited. Journal of Physics: Mathematical and Theoretical, 44, 195102.
Esfeld, M., & Lam, V. (2008). Moderate structural realism about space–time. Synthese, 160, 27–46.
French, S., & Ladyman, J. (2003). Remodelling structural realism: Quantum physics and the metaphysics of structure. Synthese, 136, 31–56.
Gutzwiller, M. C. (1990). Chaos in classical and quantum mechanics. New York: Springer.
Heller, E. J. (1984). Bound-state eigenfunctions of classically chaotic Hamiltonian systems: Scars of periodic orbits. Physical Review Letters, 53(16), 1515–1518.
Heller, E. J. (1986). Qualitative properties of eigenfunctions of classically chaotic Hamiltonian quantum chaos and statistical. Nuclear Physics, 263, 162–181.
Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15(2), 135–175.
Kaplan, L., & Heller, E. J. (1999). Measuring scars of periodic orbits. Physical Review E, 59(6), 6609–6628.
King, C. (2009). Exploring quantum, classical and semiclassical chaos in the stadium billiard. Quanta, 3(1), 16–31.
Ladyman, J. (1998). What is structural realism? Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Science, 29, 409–424.
McDonald, S. W., & Kaufman, A. N. (1979). Spectrum and eigenfunctions for a Hamiltonian with stochastic trajectories. Physical Review Letters, 42(18), 1189–1191.
McMullin, E. (1985). Galilean idealization. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 16(3), 247–273.
Morrison, M. (1999). Models as autonomous agents. In M. Morrison & M. Morgan (Eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science (pp. 38–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rice, C. (2012). Optimality explanations: A plea for an alternative approach. Biology and Philosophy, 27, 685–703.
Rice, C. (2013). Moving beyond causes: Optimality models and scientific explanation. Noûs, 49(2), 589–615.
Schupbach, J., & Sprenger, J. (2011). The logic of explanatory power. Philosophy of Science, 78(1), 105–127.
Stöckmann, H. (2010). Stoe billiards. In stoe\(\_\)billiards.jpeg (Ed.). Sholarpedia.
Strevens, M. (2008). Depth: An account of scientific explanation. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tao, T. (2007). Open question: Scarring for the Bunimovich stadium. Retrieved from http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2007/03/28/open-question-scarring-for-the-bunimovich-stadium/. Accessed 28 Nov 2014.
Teller, P. (2001). Twilight of the perfect model model. Erkenntnis, 55(3), 393–415.
Tomsovic, S., & Heller, E. J. (1993). Long-time semiclassical dynamics of chaos: The stadium billiard. Physical Review E, 47(1), 282–299.
Wayne, A. (2011). Extending the scope of explanatory idealization. Philosophy of Science, 78(5), 830–841.
Weslake, B. (2010). Explanatory depth. Philosophy of Science, 77(2), 273–294.
Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Woodward, J., & Hitchcock, C. (2003a). Explanatory generalizations, part I: A counterfactual account. Noûs, 37(1), 1–24.
Woodward, J., & Hitchcock, C. (2003b). Explanatory generalizations, part II: Plumbing explanatory depth. Noûs, 37(2), 181–199.
Worrall, J. (1989). Structural realism: The best of both worlds? Dialectica, 43(1–2), 99–124.
About this article
Cite this article
King, M. On structural accounts of model-explanations. Synthese 193, 2761–2778 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0885-z
- Scientific model