Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-8cg97 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-18T16:07:15.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distinguishing Explanatory from Nonexplanatory Fictions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Alisa Bokulich
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a growing recognition that fictions have a number of legitimate functions in science, even when it comes to scientific explanation. However, the question then arises, what distinguishes an explanatory fiction from a nonexplanatory one? Here I examine two cases—one in which there is a consensus in the scientific community that the fiction is explanatory and another in which the fiction is not explanatory. I shall show how my account of “model explanations” is able to explain this asymmetry, and argue that realism—of a more subtle form—does have a role in distinguishing explanatory from nonexplanatory fictions.

Type
Fictions, Models and Representation
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 79 , Issue 5 , December 2012 , pp. 725 - 737
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

I would like to thank Lina Jansson and Gordon Belot for encouraging me to respond to the objection that resulted in this paper. I am also grateful to my cosymposiasts, Mauricio Suárez and Arnon Levy, and to the audience in Montréal for stimulating discussions.

References

Belot, G., and Jansson, L.. 2010. Review of Reexamining the Quantum-Classical Relation: Beyond Reductionism and Pluralism, by A. Bokulich. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 41:81–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokulich, A. 2008a. “Can Classical Structures Explain Quantum Phenomena?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (2): 217–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokulich, A.. 2008b. Reexamining the Quantum-Classical Relation: Beyond Reductionism and Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokulich, A.. 2009. “Explanatory Fictions.” In Fictions in Science: Philosophical Essays on Modeling and Idealization, ed. Suárez, M., 91–109. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bokulich, A.. 2011. “How Scientific Models Can Explain.” Synthese 180 (1): 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folk, J., Patel, S., Godijn, S., Huibers, A., Cronenwett, S., and Marcus, C.. 1996. “Statistics and Parametric Correlations of Coulomb Blockade Peak Fluctuations in Quantum Dots.” Physical Review Letters 76:1699–1702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frigg, R. 2010. “Fiction and Scientific Representation.” In Beyond Mimesis and Convention: Representation in Art and Science, ed. Frigg, R. and Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science M. Hunter., vol. 262. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. 1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, L. 2000. “Periodic Orbit Effects on Conductance Peak Heights in a Chaotic Quantum Dot.” Physical Review E 62:3476–88.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1981. “Explanatory Unification.” Philosophy of Science 48:507–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narimanov, E., Baranger, H., Cerruti, N., and Tomsovic, S.. 2001. “Semiclassical Theory of Coulomb Blockade Peak Heights in Chaotic Quantum Dots.” Physical Review B 64:235329–1-13.Google Scholar
Narimanov, E., Cerruti, N. R., Baranger, H. U., and Tomsovic, S.. 1999. “Chaos in Quantum Dots: Dynamical Modulation of Coulomb Blockade Peak Heights.” Physical Review Letters 83:2540–2643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaihinger, H. 1911/1952. The Philosophy of “As If”: A System of the Theoretical, Practical and Religious Fictions of Mankind. Trans. Ogden, C. K.. London: Lund Humphries.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. 2003. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar