Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:24:38.738Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Idealization and Many Aims

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Angela Potochnik
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, I first outline the view developed in my recent book on the role of idealization in scientific understanding. I discuss how this view leads to the recognition of a number of kinds of variability among scientific representations, including variability introduced by the many different aims of scientific projects. I then argue that the role of idealization in securing understanding distances understanding from truth but that this understanding nonetheless gives rise to scientific knowledge. This discussion will clarify how my view relates to three other recent books on understanding by Henk de Regt, Catherine Elgin, and Kareem Khalifa.

Type
Understanding and Imagination
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 87 , Issue 5: PSA 2018 - Proceedings of the 2018 biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II Symposia Papers , December 2020 , pp. 933 - 943
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

†

I owe thanks to my cosymposiasts Catherine Elgin, Kareem Khalifa, and Henk de Regt for a lively and genial exchange. Kareem Khalifa also provided helpful comments on a draft of this article.

References

Bokulich, A. 2009. “Explanatory Fictions.” In Fictions in Science: Philosophical Essays on Modeling and Idealization, ed. Suárez, M., 91–109. Routledge Studies in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
de Regt, H. W. 2017. Understanding Scientific Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgin, C. Z. 2004. “True Enough.” Philosophical Issues 14 (1): 113–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgin, C. Z.. 2017. True Enough. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, S. R. 2012. “The Value of Understanding.” Philosophy Compass 7:103–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalifa, K. 2017. Understanding, Explanation, and Scientific Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potochnik, A. 2016. “Scientific Explanation: Putting Communication First.” Philosophy of Science 83:721–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potochnik, A.. 2017. Idealization and the Aims of Science. Chicago: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potochnik, A.. 2019. Review of True Enough, by Catherine Elgin. Philosophical Review 128:363–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strevens, M. 2004. “The Causal and Unification Accounts of Explanation Unified—Causally.” Nous 38:154–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strevens, M.. 2008. Comments on Woodward, Making Things Happen. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 77 (1): 171–92.Google Scholar
Strevens, M.. 2013. “No Understanding without Explanation.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (3): 510–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. 2007. Re-engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, J. 2003. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar