Hypothetical, not Fictional Worlds

Open access

Abstract

This paper critically analyzes the fiction-view of scientific modeling, which exploits presumed analogies between literary fiction and model building in science. The basic idea is that in both fiction and scientific modeling fictional worlds are created. The paper argues that the fiction-view comes closest to certain scientific thought experiments, especially those involving demons in science and to literary movements like naturalism. But the paper concludes that the dissimilarities prevail over the similarities. The fiction-view fails to do justice to the plurality of model types used in science; it fails to realize that a function like idealization only makes sense in science because models, unlike works of fiction, can be de-idealized; it fails to distinguish sufficiently between the make-believe (fictional) worlds created in fiction and the hypothetical (as-if) worlds envisaged in models. Representation characterized in the fiction-view as a license to draw inferences does not sufficiently distinguish between inferences in fiction from inferences in scientific modeling. To highlight the contrast the paper proposes to explicate representation in terms of satisfaction of constraints.

Bailer-Jones, D., 2003, When Models Represent. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17, 59–74.

Bailer-Jones, D., 2009, Scientific Models in Philosophy of Science. Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press.

Born, M., 1949, Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance. Oxford, Clarendon.

Fine, A., 1993, Fictionalism Midwest Studies in Philosophy, XVIII, 1–18.

Giere, R., 2004, How Models are used to represent Reality. Philosophy of Science, 71, 742–752.

Giere, R., 2008, Why Models should not be regarded as Works of Fiction. In M. Suárez (ed.): Fiction in Science, London, Routledge, 2009, 248–258.

Godfrey-Smith, P., 2006, The strategy of model-based science. Biology and Philosophy, 21, 725–740.

Godfrey-Smith, P., 2009, Models and Fictions in Science. Philosophical Studies, 143, 101–116.

Frigg, R., 2010, Fiction and Scientific Representation. In Roman Frigg and Matthew Hunter (eds.): Beyond Mimesis and Nominalism: Representation in Art and Science, Berlin/New York, Springer 2010, 97–138.

Frigg. R., S. Bradley, H. Du and Leonard A. Smith, 2014, Laplace’s Demon and the Adventures of His Apprentices. Philosophy of Science, 81(1), 31–59.

Heilbron, J. L., 1981, Historical Studies in the Theory of Atomic Structure. New York, Arno Press.

Norton, J., 1996, Are Thought Experiments Just What You Thought? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 26, 333–366.

Pais, A., 1986, Inward Bound. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Rutherford, E., 1911, The Scattering of a and b Particles by Matter and the Structure of the Atom. Philosophical Magazine, XXI, 669–88.

Suárez, M., 2003, Scientific Representation: Against similarity and isomorphism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17(3), 225–244.

Suárez, M., 2004, An inferential conception of scientific representation. Philosophy of Science, 71, 767–779.

Suárez, M., 2010, Scientific Representation. Philosophy Compass, 5(1), 91–101.

Weinert, F., 1999, Theories, Models and Constraints. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 30/2, 303–333

Weinert, F., 2000, The Construction of Atom Models: Eliminative Inductivism and its Relation to Falsificationism. Foundations of Science, 5, 491–531

Weinert, F., 2006, Einstein and the Representation of Reality. Facta Philosophica, 8, 229–52

Weinert, F., 2016, The Demons of Science. What they tell us and do not tells us about our world. Springer International Publishing Switzerland.

Journal Information

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 147 147 11
PDF Downloads 57 57 6