Erkenntnis

, Volume 55, Issue 3, pp 393–415

Twilight Of The Perfect Model Model

  • Paul Teller
Article

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Anderson, P. W.: 1972, ‘More is Different’, Science 177, 393.Google Scholar
  2. Auyang, S.: 1999, Foundations of Complex-System Theories, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Beatty, John: 1980, ‘Optimal Design Models and the Strategy of Model Building in Evolutionary Biology’, Philosophy of Science pp. 532–61.Google Scholar
  4. Beatty, John: 1981, ‘What's Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory?’, in P. D Asquith and R. G Giere (eds), PSA 1980: Proceedings of the 1980 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol.2, (East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association), pp. 397–426.Google Scholar
  5. Barrow, John: 1991, Theories of Everything: The Quest for Ultimate Explanation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Barrow, John: 1994, ‘Theories of Everything’, in Jan Hilgevoord (ed.), Physics and Our View of the World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 38–60.Google Scholar
  7. Cartwright, N.: 1983, How the Laws of Physics Lie, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. Cartwright, N.: 1994, ‘Fundamentalism vs The Patchwork of Laws’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, pp. 279–292.Google Scholar
  9. Cartwright, N.: 1995, ‘The Metaphysics of the Disunified World’, in D. Hull and M. Forbes (eds), PSA 1994, vol. II: Proceedings of the 1994 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 2, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, pp. 357–64.Google Scholar
  10. Cartwright, N.: 1997, ‘Models: The Blueprints for Laws’, Philosophy of Science, pp. S292–S303.Google Scholar
  11. Cartwright, N., T. Shomar and M. Suarez: 1995, ‘The Tool Box of Science’, in W. Herfel et al. (eds), Theories and Models in Scientific Processes, Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 137–149.Google Scholar
  12. Clavelin, M.: 1974, The Natural Philosophy of Galileo, translated by A. J. Pomeran, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. Daston, Lorraine J. and Peter Galison: 1992, ‘The Image of Objectivity,’ Representations, pp. 81–128.Google Scholar
  14. Daves, Paul: 1988, The Cosmic Blueprint, Touchstone, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Davies, Paul (ed.): 1989, The New Physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  16. Duhem, P.: 1954, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, translated by P. Wiener, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  17. Fine, A.: 1986, The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  18. Feynman, R., R. Leighton and M. Sands: 1963, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  19. Feynman, R.: 1965, The Character of Physical Law, Penguin, London.Google Scholar
  20. Gell-Mann, Murray: 1994, The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex, Little, Brown and Company, London.Google Scholar
  21. Giere, R: 1979, Understanding Scientific Reasoning, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, Second edition, 1984.Google Scholar
  22. Giere, R: 1985, ‘Constructive Realism’, in P. Churchland and C. Hooker (eds), Images of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  23. Giere, R.: 1988a, Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  24. Giere, R: 1988b, ‘Laws, Theories, and Generalizations’, in A. Grunbaum and W. C. Salmon (eds), The Limits of Deductivisim, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 37–46.Google Scholar
  25. Giere, R.: 1995, ‘The Skeptical Perspective: Science without Laws of Nature’, in F. Weinert (ed.), Laws of Nature: Essays on the Philosophical, Scientific and Historical Dimensions, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 120–138.Google Scholar
  26. Jones, M.: to appear, ‘Models and Idealized Systems’.Google Scholar
  27. Koertge, N.: 1977, ‘Galileo and the Problem of Accidents’, Journal of the History of Ideas, pp. 389–408.Google Scholar
  28. Kant, I.: 1783, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics that will be Able to Present Itself as a Science, Riga, Hartknoch.Google Scholar
  29. Laplace, S.: 1814, Essai Philosophique Sur Les Probabilities, Courcier, Paris.Google Scholar
  30. Miller, David: 1974, ‘Popper's Qualitative Theory of Verisimilitude’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, pp. 166–77.Google Scholar
  31. McMullin, E: 1985, ‘Galilean Idealization’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, pp. 247–273.Google Scholar
  32. Niiniluoto, Ilkka: 1999, ‘Verisimilitude: The Third Period’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
  33. Popper, Sir Karl: 1972, Conjectures and Refutations, 4th Edition, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  34. Putnan, H.: 1975, ‘Philosophy and Our Mental Life’, in Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 291–303.Google Scholar
  35. Redhead, Michael: 1980, ‘Models in Physics’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, pp. 145–163.Google Scholar
  36. Redhead, Michael: 1989, ‘Physics for Pedestrians: An Inaugural Lecture’, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  37. Redhead, Michael: 1995, From Physics to Metaphysics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  38. Redhead, Michael: 1999, ‘Quantum Field Theory and the Philosopher’, in Tian Yu Cao (ed.), Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Field Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  39. Rescher, N.: 1984, The Limits of Science, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  40. Richardson, R.: 1986a, ‘Models and Scientific Idealizations’, in P. Weingartner and G. Dorn (eds), Sonderdruck aus Foundations of Biology, A selection of Papers Contributed to the Biology Section of the 7th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Verlag Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, Vienna.Google Scholar
  41. Richardson, R.: 1986, ‘Models and Scientific Explanations’, Philosophica, pp. 59–72.Google Scholar
  42. Savage, W.: to appear, ‘The 'semantic’ conception of theories'.Google Scholar
  43. Scrivin, M.: 1961, ‘The Key Property of Physical Laws - Inaccuracy’, in H. Feigl and G. Maxwell (eds), Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science, Holt, Rinehart andWinston, New York, pp. 91–101.Google Scholar
  44. Shapere, D: 1969, ‘Notes Toward a Post-Positivistic Interpretation of Science’, in P. Achinstein and S. Barker (eds), The Legacy of Logical Positivism, pp. 115–60.Google Scholar
  45. Suppe, F: 1989, The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  46. Shimony, Abner: 1993, Search for a Naturalistic World View, vol. II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  47. Smith, Peter: 1998, ‘Approximate Truth and Dynamical Theories’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, pp. 253–277.Google Scholar
  48. Suppes, P.: 1961, ‘A Comparison of the Meaning and Use of Models in Mathematics and the Empirical Sciences’, in The Concept and the Role of the Model in Mathematics and Natural and Social Sciences, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 163–77.Google Scholar
  49. Suppes, P.: 1962, ‘Models of Data’, in E. Nagel, P. Suppes and A. Tarski (eds), Logic, Methodology and the Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress, Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 252–61.Google Scholar
  50. Suppes, P: 1967, ‘What is a Scientific Theory?’, in S. Morgenbesser (ed.), Philosophy of Science Today, Basic Books, ondon.Google Scholar
  51. Teller, P.: 1995, An Interpretive Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  52. Van Fraassen, B.: 1985, ‘Empiricism in the Philosophy of Science’, in P. Churchland and C. Hooker (eds), Images of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  53. Van Fraassen, B.: 1987, ‘The Semantic Approach to Scientific Theories’, in N. J. Nersessian (ed.), The Process of Science, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp. 105–124.Google Scholar
  54. Van Fraassen, B.: 1989, Laws and Symmetry, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  55. Van Fraassen, B.: 1991, Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  56. Weinberg, Steven: 1993, Dreams of a Final Theory, Hutchinson Radius, London.Google Scholar
  57. Wilson, M.: 1985, ‘What Can Theory Tell Us about Observation?’, in P. M. Churchland and C. A. Hooker (eds), Images of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 222–42.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Teller
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of California at DavisU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations