Advertisement

Visual Reasoning in Science and Mathematics

  • Otávio Bueno
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics book series (SAPERE, volume 27)

Abstract

Diagrams are hybrid entities, which incorporate both linguistic and pictorial elements, and are crucial to any account of scientific and mathematical reasoning. Hence, they offer a rich source of examples to examine the relation between model-theoretic considerations (central to a model-based approach) and linguistic features (crucial to a language-based view of scientific and mathematical reasoning). Diagrams also play different roles in different fields. In scientific practice, their role tends not to be evidential in nature, and includes: (i) highlighting relevant relations in a micrograph (by making salient certain bits of information); (ii) sketching the plan for an experiment; and (iii) expressing expected visually salient information about the outcome of an experiment. None of these traits are evidential; rather they are all pragmatic. In contrast, in mathematical practice, diagrams are used as (i) heuristic tools in proof construction (including dynamic diagrams involved in computer visualization); (ii) notational devices; and (iii) full-blown proof procedures (Giaquinto 2005; and Brown in Philosophy of mathematics. Routledge, New York, 2008). Some of these traits are evidential. After assessing these different roles, I explain why diagrams are used in the way they are in these two fields. The result leads to an account of different styles of scientific reasoning within a broadly model-based conception.

Keywords

Mathematical Object Scientific Practice Mathematical Practice Linguistic Feature Semantic View 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Baird, D., Nordmann, A., & Schummer, J. (Eds.). (2004). Discovering the nanoscale. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, J. R. (2008). Philosophy of mathematics (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bueno, O. (2011). When physics and biology meet: The nanoscale case. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 42, 180–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bueno, O., & French, S. (2011). How theories represent. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62, 857–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bumm, L.A., Arnold, J.J., Cygan, M.T., Dunbar, T.D., Burgin, T.P., Jones II, L., et al. (1996). Are single molecular wires conducting? Science 271, 1705–1707.Google Scholar
  6. Carnap, R. (1934/1937). The logical syntax of language (S. Amethe, Trans) London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  7. Ding, B., Sha, R., & Seeman, N. (2004). Pseudohexagonal 2D DNA crystals from double crossover cohesion. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 126, 10230–10231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Giaquinto, M. (2005). Mathematical activity. In P. Mancosu, K. Jørgensen & Pedersen S. (Eds.), pp. 75–87.Google Scholar
  9. Humphreys, P. (2004). Extending ourselves: Computational science, empiricism, and scientific method. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hooke, R (1665). Micrographia. London: Royal Society.Google Scholar
  11. Lopes, D. (1996). Understanding pictures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lopes, D. (2009). Drawing in a social science: Lithic illustration. Perspectives on Science, 17, 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lynch, M. (1991). Science in the age of mechanical reproduction: Moral and epistemic relations between diagrams and photographs. Biology and Philosophy, 6, 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mancosu, P., Jørgensen, K., & Pedersen, S. (Eds.). (2005). Visualization, explanation and reasoning styles in mathematics. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Pitt, J. (2004). The epistemology of the very small. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann & J. Schummer (Eds.), pp. 157–163.Google Scholar
  16. Seeman, N. (2003). DNA in a material world. Nature, 421, 427–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Seeman, N. (2005). From genes to machines: DNA nanomechanical devices. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 30, 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Seeman, N., & Belcher, A. (2002). Emulating biology: Building nanostructures from the bottom up. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Science Vol. 99, pp. 6451–6455.Google Scholar
  19. Suppe, F. (1977a). The search for philosophic understanding of scientific theories. In F. Suppe (Ed.), pp. 1–232.Google Scholar
  20. Suppe, F. (Ed.). (1977b). The structure of scientific theories (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  21. van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wilson, C. (1995). The invisible world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA

Personalised recommendations