Advertisement

From Mindless Modeling to Scientific Models

The Case of Emerging Models
  • Tommaso Bertolotti
Part of the Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics book series (SAPERE, volume 2)

Abstract

This paper aims at contributing to the ongoing epistemological debate on the nature of models by proposing an excursus from emerging to scientific modeling that will highlight the similarities between the two forms: this analysis will also allow to focus on the development of those traits that are instead typical of scientific models. The analysis of basic forms of modeling will to show how even mindless processing of external reality does not provide passive descriptions but is rather a poietic aggression which constitutes external reality as the organism perceives it. In my argument I will make apparent how this poietic character is indeed common to both emerging and scientific modeling. My final contention will be that scientific endeavor, captured within Magnani’s notion of epistemic warfare, is not characterized by a dramatic qualitative difference in the nature of models at play, but by a new conception and attitude displayed by scientists in their used of models, also coupled with the other fundamental scientific tool: the experiment.

Keywords

Target System External Reality Concrete System Abductive Inference Mathematical Abstraction 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albertazzi, L., van Tonder, G.J., Vishwanath, D. (eds.): Perception Beyond Inference: The Information Content of Visual Processes. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar
  2. Bertolotti, T., Magnani, L.: The Role of Agency Detection in the Invention of Supernatural Beings An Abductive Approach. In: Magnani, L., Carnielli, W., Pizzi, C. (eds.) Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology. SCI, vol. 314, pp. 239–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bird, C.D., Emery, N.J.: Rooks use stones to raise the water level to reach a floating worm. Current Biology 19, 1410–1414 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calvo, P., Keijzer, F.: Cognition in plants. In: Baluška, F. (ed.) Plant-Environment Interactions: From Sensory Plant Biology to Active Plant Behavior, pp. 247–266. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  5. Cartwright, N.: How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cartwright, N.: If no capacities then no credible worlds. But can models reveal capacities? Erkenntnis 70, 45–58 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cartwright, N.: Models: Parables v fables. In: Frigg, R., Hunter, M. (eds.) Beyond Mimesis and Convention. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 262, pp. 19–31. Springer, Netherlands (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chakravartty, A.: Informational versus functional theories of scientific representation. Synthese 172, 197–213 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chandrasekharan, S.: Building to discover: a common coding model. Cognitive Science 33, 1059–1086 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, K.L.: Negation as failure. In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (eds.) Logic and Data Bases, pp. 94–114. Plenum, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  11. Contessa, G.: Scientific representation, interpretation, and surrogative reasoning. Philosophy of Science 74, 48–68 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Contessa, G.: Scientific models and fictional objects. Synthese 172, 215–229 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis, G., Holmes, A.: What is enumerated by subitization mechanisms? Perception & Psychophysics 67(7), 1229–1241 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Cruz, H.: Towards a darwinian approach to mathematics. Foundations of Science 11, 157–196 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dehaene, S., Spelke, E., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R., Tsivkin, S.: Sources of mathematical thinking: behavioral and brain imaging evidence. Science 284(5416), 970–974 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dehaene, S.: The Number Sense. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1997)Google Scholar
  17. Faust, J.: Can religious arguments persuade? International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 63, 71–86 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feyerabend, P.: Against Method (1975), 3rd edn. Verso, London-New York (1993)Google Scholar
  19. Frigg, R.: Fiction and scientific representation. In: Frigg, R., Hunter, M.C. (eds.) Beyond Mimesis and Nominalism: Representation in Art and Science, pp. 97–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  20. Frigg, R.: Fiction in science. In: Woods, J. (ed.) Fictions and Models: New Essays, pp. 247–287. Philosophia Verlag, Munich (2010)Google Scholar
  21. Frigg, R.: Models and fiction. Synthese 172, 251–268 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Galilei, G.: The Assayer (1623). In: Drake, S. (ed.& trans.) Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, pp. 231–280. Doubleday, New York (1957)Google Scholar
  23. Gendler, T.S.: Galileo and the indispensability of scientific thought experiment. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49(9), 397–424 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gibson, J.J.: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1979)Google Scholar
  25. Giere, R.N.: Explaining Science: a Cognitive Approach. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1988)Google Scholar
  26. Giere, R.: An agent-based conception of models and scientific representation. Synthese 172, 269–281 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Giere, R.: Why scientific models should not be regarded as works of fiction. In: Suárez, M. (ed.) Fictions in Science. Philosophical Essays on Modeling and Idealization, pp. 248–258. Routledge, London (2009)Google Scholar
  28. Glendinning, P.: The mathematics of motion camouflage. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 271(1538), 477–481 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Godfrey-Smith, P.: Models and fictions in science. Philosophical Studies 143, 101–116 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gorman, M.E.: Transforming Nature. Ethics, Invention and Discovery. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1998)Google Scholar
  31. Heyes, C.M.: Imitation, culture and cognition. Animal Behavior 46, 999–1010 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hodgson, D.: Evolution of the visual cortex and the emergence of symmetry in the acheulean techno-complex. Evolution 8, 93–97 (2009)Google Scholar
  33. Holland, J.H.: Hidden Order. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  34. Holland, J.H.: Emergence: From Chaos to Order. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1997)Google Scholar
  35. Jacob, P., Jeannerod, M.: Ways of Seeing: The Scope and Limits of Visual Cognition. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003)Google Scholar
  36. Kirsh, D.: Complementary strategies: Why we use our hands when we think. In: Moore, J.D., Lehman, J.F. (eds.) Proceedings of the Seventheenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 212–217. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (1995)Google Scholar
  37. Kuorikoski, J., Lehtinen, A.: Incredible worlds, credible results. Erkenntnis 70, 119–131 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Laurent, É.: Mental representations as simulated affordances: not intrinsic, not so much functional, but intentionally-driven. Intellectica 1-2(36-37), 385–387 (2003)Google Scholar
  39. Lockhart, P.: Lockhart’s lament (March 2008), http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_03_08.html
  40. Magnani, L.: Abduction, Reason, and Science. Processes of Discovery and Explanation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Magnani, L.: Conjectures and manipulations. Computational modeling and the extra-theoretical dimension of scientific discovery. Minds and Machines 14, 507–537 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Magnani, L.: Model-based and manipulative abduction in science. Foundations of Science 9, 219–247 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Magnani, L.: Mimetic minds. Meaning formation through epistemic mediators and external representations. In: Loula, A., Gudwin, R., Queiroz, J. (eds.) Artificial Cognition Systems, pp. 327–357. Idea Group Publishers, Hershey (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Magnani, L.: Animal abduction. From mindless organisms to artifactual mediators. In: Magnani, L., Li, P. (eds.) Model-Based Reasoning in Science, Technology, and Medicine, pp. 3–37. Springer, Berlin (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Magnani, L.: Morality in a Technological World. Knowledge as Duty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Magnani, L.: Abductive Cognition: The Epistemological and Eco-Cognitive Dimensions of Hypothetical Reasoning. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  47. Magnani, L.: Scientific Models are Not Fictions: Model-Based Science as Epistemic Warfare. In: Magnani, L., Li, L. (eds.) Philosophy and Cognitive Science. SAPERE, vol. 2, pp. 1–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mäki, U.: MISSing the world. Models as isolations and credible surrogate systems. Erkenntnis 70, 29–43 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Millikan, R.G.: On reading signs: Some differences between us and the others. In: Kimbrough Oller, D., Griebel, U. (eds.) Evolution of Communication Systems: A Comparative Approach, pp. 15–29. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  50. Mizrahi, M.: Idealizations and scientific understanding. Philosophical Studies (2009), http://www.springerlink.com/content/e33h421502t20118/, doi: 10.1007/s11098-011-9716-3
  51. Morrison, M.: Fictions, representations, and reality. In: Suárez, M. (ed.) Fictions in Science: Philosophical Essays on Modeling and Idealization, pp. 110–135. Routledge, London (2009)Google Scholar
  52. Nersessian, N.J.: Creating Scientific Concepts. MIT Press, Boston (2010)Google Scholar
  53. Pesic, P.: Wrestling with proteus: Francis bacon and the “torture” of nature. Isis 90(1), 81–94 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Portides, D.P.: The relation between idealization and approximation in scientific model construction. Science & Education 16, 699–724 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Raftopoulos, A.: Is perception informationally encapsulated? The issue of theory-ladenness of perception. Cognitive Science 25, 423–451 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Raftopoulos, A.: Reentrant pathways and the theory-ladenness of perception. Philosophy of Science 68, S187–S189 (2001); Proceedings of PSA 2000 Biennal MeetingCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rivas, J., Burghardt, G.M.: Crotalomorphysm: a metaphor for understanding anthropomorphism by omission. In: Bekoff, M., Allen, C., Burghardt, M. (eds.) The Cognitive Animal. Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives on Animal Cognition, pp. 9–18. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  58. Sage, J.: Truth-reliability and the evolution of human cognitive faculties. Philosophical Studies 117, 95–106 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Skelhorn, J., Rowland, H.M., Ruxton, G.D.: The evolution and ecology of masquerade. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 99(1), 1–8 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Srinivasan, M.V., Davey, M.: Strategies for active camouflage of motion. Proceedings: Biological Sciences 259(1354), 19–25 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stevens, M., Merilaita, S.: Animal camouflage: current issues and new perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364, 423–427 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Suárez, M.: Scientific fictions as rules of inference. In: Suárez, M. (ed.) Fictions in Science: Philosophical Essays on Modeling and Idealization, pp. 158–178. Routledge, London (2009)Google Scholar
  63. Suárez, M.: Fictions, inference, and realism. In: Woods, J. (ed.) Fictions and Models: New Essays, pp. 225–245. Philosophia Verlag, Munich (2010)Google Scholar
  64. Sugden, R.: Credible worlds, capacities and mechanisms. Erkenntnis 70, 3–27 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thomson-Jones, M.: Missing systems and the face value practice. Synthese 172, 283–299 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Toon, A.: The ontology of theoretical modelling: models as make believe. Synthese 172, 301–315 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tweney, R.D.: Discovering discovery: How faraday found the first metallic colloid. Perspectives on Science 14(1), 97–121 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Weir, A.A.S., Kacelnik, A.: A new caledonian crow (corvus moneduloides) creatively re-designs tools by bending or unbending aluminium strips. Animal Cognition 9, 317–334 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weisberg, M.: Three kinds of idealization. Journal of Philosophy 104(12), 639–659 (2007)Google Scholar
  70. Woods, J., Rosales, A.: Unifying the fictional. In: Woods, J. (ed.) Fictions and Models: New Essays, pp. 345–388. Philosophia Verlag, Munich (2010)Google Scholar
  71. Woods, J., Rosales, A.: Virtuous Distortion: Abstraction and Idealization in Model-Based Science. In: Magnani, L., Carnielli, W., Pizzi, C. (eds.) Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology. SCI, vol. 314, pp. 3–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Woods, J.: The Death of Argument. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2004)Google Scholar
  73. Woods, J. (ed.): Fictions and Models: New Essays. Philosophia Verlag, Munich (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Arts and Humanities, Philosophy Section and Computational Philosophy LaboratoryUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations