Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:26:52.197Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientific Structuralism: Presentation and Representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Katherine Brading  and
Elaine Landry
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores varieties of scientific structuralism. Central to our investigation is the notion of ‘shared structure’. We begin with a description of mathematical structuralism and use this to point out analogies and disanalogies with scientific structuralism. Our particular focus is the semantic structuralist's attempt to use the notion of shared structure to account for the theory-world connection, this use being crucially important to both the contemporary structural empiricist and realist. We show why minimal scientific structuralism is, at the very least, a powerful methodological standpoint. Our investigation also makes explicit what more must be added to this minimal structuralist position in order to address the theory-world connection, namely, an account of representation.

Type
The Semantic View of Theories, Scientific Structuralism, and Structural Realism
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 73 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2004 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers. Edited by Miriam Solomon , December 2006 , pp. 571 - 581
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.)

Footnotes

‡

Our thanks to the symposium participants: Bas van Fraassen, Steven French, Martin Thomson-Jones, Stathis Psillos, and Juha Saatsi; and to all those who provided such valuable questions and comments during the discussion period.

References

Benacerraf, P. (1965), “What Numbers Could Not Be,” in Benacerraf, P. and Putnam, H. (eds.), Philosophy of Mathematics (1991, 2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press, 272–294.Google Scholar
Bokulich, A. (2003), “Horizontal Models: From Bakers to Cats,” Philosophy of Science 70 (3): 609–627..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N., Shomar, T., and Suarez, M. (1995), “The Toolbox of Science,” in Herfel, W., Krajewski, W., Niiniluoto, I., and Wojcicki, R. (eds.), Theories and Models in Scientific Progress. Amsterdam: Rodopoi, 137–149.Google Scholar
Da Costa, N. C. A., Bueno, O., and French, S. (1997), “Suppes Predicates for Space-Time,” Synthese 112:271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Da Costa, N. C. A., and French, S. (1990), “The Model-Theoretic Approach in the Philosophy of Science,” Philosophy of Science 57:248–265.Google Scholar
Da Costa, N. N. A., and Chauqui, R. (1988), “On Suppes’ Set Theoretical Predicates,” Erkenntnis 29:95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, S. (2000), “The Reasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics: Partial Structures and the Application of Group Theory to Physics,” Synthese 125:103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. N. (1985), “Constructive Realism,” in Churchland, P. and Hooker, C. (eds.), Images of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 75–98.Google Scholar
Giere, R. N. (1988), Explaining Science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. N. (1995), “Viewing Science,” in D. Hull, H. Forbes, and R. H. Buriam (eds.), Philosophy of Science 2:3–16.Google Scholar
Ladyman, J. (1998), “What Is Structural Realism,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 29 (3): 409–424..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landry, E., and Marquis, J-P. (2005), “Categories in Context: Historical, Foundational and Philosophical,” Philosophia Mathematica 13 (1): 1–43..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1948), “On What There Is,” Review of Metaphysics 2 (5): 21–38..Google Scholar
Saunders, S. (1993), “To What Physics Corresponds,” in French, S. and Kaminga, H. (eds.), Correspondence, Invariance, and Heuristics: Essays in Honour of Heinz Post. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 295–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suarez, M. (2003), “Scientific Representation: Against Similarity and Isomorphism,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17 (3): 225–244..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, P. (1957), Introduction to Logic. New York: van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1960), “A Comparison of the Meaning and Uses of Models in Mathematics and the Empirical Sciences,” Synthese 12:287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, P. (1962), “Models of Data,” in Logic Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 252–261.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1967), “What Is a Scientific Theory,” in Morgenbesser, S. (ed.), Philosophy of Science Today. New York: Basic, 55–67.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1970), “On the Extension of Beth’s Semantics of Physical Theories,” Philosophy of Science 37:325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1989), Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (2002), The Empirical Stance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar