Advertisement

Idealizations in Empirical Modeling

  • Julie JebeileEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 327)

Abstract

In empirical modeling, mathematics has an important utility in transforming descriptive representations of target system(s) into calculation devices, thus creating useful scientific models. The transformation may be considered as the action of tools. In this paper, I assume that model idealizations could be such tools. I then examine whether these idealizations have characteristic properties of tools, i.e., whether they are being adapted to the objects to which they are applied, and whether they are to some extent generic.

Keywords

Boundary Layer Cellular Automaton Formal Idealization Target System Representational Content 
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. Bailer-Jones, D. M. (2009). Scientific models in philosophy of science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barberousse, A., & Imbert, C. (2013). New mathematics for old physics: the case of lattice fluids. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, Elsevier, 44(3), 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barberousse, A., & Imbert, C. (2014). Recurring models and sensitivity to computational constraints. The Monist, 97(3), 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batterman, R. W. (2005). Critical phenomena and breaking drops: Infinite idealizations in physics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B, 36(2), 225–244.Google Scholar
  5. Batterman, R. W. (2009). Idealization and modeling. Synthese, 169(3), 427–446.Google Scholar
  6. Batterman, B. (2010). On the explanatory role of mathematics in empirical science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bender, C. M., & Orszag, S. A. (1978). Advanced mathematical methods for scientists and engineers. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  8. Bokulich, A. (2008). Can classical structures explain quantum phenomena? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59(2), 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bokulich, A. (2009). Explanatory fictions. In M. Suárez (Ed.), Fictions in science: Philosophical essays on modeling and idealization (pp. 91–109). Londres: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Bueno, O., & Colyvan, M. (2011). An inferential conception of the application of mathematics. Noûs, 45(2), 345–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. D’Alembert, J. (1782). Essai d’une nouvelle théorie de la résistance des fluides. Paris.Google Scholar
  13. D’Humières, D., & Lallemand, P. (1986). Lattice gas automata for fluid me. Physica, 140A, 326–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Darrigol, O. (2005). Worlds of flow: A history of hydrodynamics from the Bernoullis to Prandtl. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009). Models and fictions in science. Philosophical Studies, 143(1), 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heidelberger, M. (2006). Applying models in fluid dynamics. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 20(1), 49–67.Google Scholar
  18. Hesse, M. B. (1966). Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jones, M. R. (2005). Idealization and abstraction: a framework. In N. Cartwright & M. R. Jones (Eds.), Idealization XII: Correcting the model : Idealization and abstraction in the sciences (pp. 173–217). Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keller, E. F. (2003). Models, simulation, and ‘computer experiments. In H. Radder (Ed.), The philosophy of scientific experimentation (pp. 198–215). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  21. Khujadze, G., van yen Nguyen, R., Schneider, K., Oberlack, M., & Farge, M. (2010). Coherent vorticity extraction in turbulent boundary layers using orthogonal wavelets. Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 55(16), 206.Google Scholar
  22. Laymon, R.. (1980). Idealization, explanation, and confirmation. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1980, 336–350.Google Scholar
  23. Laymon, R. (1985). Idealizations and the testing of theories by experimentation. In P. Achinstein, & O. Hannaway (Eds.), Observation experiment and hypothesis in modern physical science (pp. 147–173). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  24. Laymon, R. (1989a). Applying idealized scientific theories to engineering. Synthese, 81(3), 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laymon, R. (1989b). Cartwright and the lying laws of physics. Journal of Philosophy, 86(7), 353–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laymon, R. (1995). Experimentation and the legitimacy of idealization. Philosophical Studies, 77(2-3), 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McMullin, E. (1985). Galilean idealization. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 16(3), 247–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meiburg, E. (1986). Comparison of the molecular dynamics method and the direct simulation Monte Carlo technique for flows around simple geometries. Physics of Fluids, 29(10).Google Scholar
  29. Morrison, M. (1999). Models as autonomous agents. In M. S. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators (pp. 38–65). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Norton, J. D. (2012). Approximation and idealization: Why the difference matters. Philosophy of Science, 79(2), 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pincock, C. (2007). Mathematical idealization. Philosophy of Science, 74, 957–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ramsey, J. L. (1990). Beyond numerical and causal accuracy: Expanding the set of justificational criteria. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1, 485–499.Google Scholar
  33. Ramsey, J. L. (1992). Towards an expanded epistemology for approximations. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1, 154–164.Google Scholar
  34. Rohrlich, F. (1990). Computer Simulation in the Physical Sciences. PSA 1990: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2:507–518.Google Scholar
  35. Rothman, D., & Zaleski, S. (2004). Lattice-gas cellular automata. Simple models of complex hydrodynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Sklar, L. (2000). Theory and truth: Philosophical critique within foundational science. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Strevens, M. (2007). Why explanations lie: Idealization in explanation. New York: New York University. Unpublished manuscript. http://www.strevens.org/research/expln/Idealization.pdf.
  38. Van Dyke, M. (1975). Perturbation methods in fluid mechanics. Stanford: The Parabolic Press.Google Scholar
  39. Weisberg, M. (2007). Three kinds of idealization. Journal of Philosophy, 104(12), 639–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IRFU/Service d’AstrophysiqueCEA Paris-SaclayGif-sur-YvetteFrance

Personalised recommendations