Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-nx7b4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-12T15:41:50.449Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Inferential Conception of Scientific Representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Mauricio Suárez
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper defends an inferential conception of scientific representation. It approaches the notion of representation in a deflationary spirit, and minimally characterizes the concept as it appears in science by means of two necessary conditions: its essential directionality and its capacity to allow surrogate reasoning and inference. The conception is defended by showing that it successfully meets the objections that make its competitors, such as isomorphism and similarity, untenable. In addition the inferential conception captures the objectivity of the cognitive representations used by science, it sheds light on their truth and completeness, and it explains the source of the analogy between scientific and artistic modes of representation.

Information

Type
The Pragmatics of Scientific Representation
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 71 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers , December 2004 , pp. 767 - 779
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by 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

‡

This paper was written during my tenure of a Leverhulme Trust Fellowship (2001–2002), and has thereafter been supported by projects BFF2002-01552 and BFF2002-01244 of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology. I would like to thank audiences at Oxford (2004), Sydney (2003), and at the PSA meeting in Milwaukee (2002) for comments.

References

Baxandall, Michael (1985), Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Blunt, Anthony (1969), Picasso’s Guernica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Earman, John (2001), “Lambda: The Constant That Would Not Die”, Lambda: The Constant That Would Not Die 55:189–220.Google Scholar
Elgin, Catherine (1997), Between the Absolute and the Arbitrary. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Gamow, George (1970), My World Line. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald (2004), “How Models Are Used to Represent Reality”, How Models Are Used to Represent Reality 71 (Proceedings): 742–752.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson (1976), Languages of Art. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Hertz, Heinrich ([1894] 1956), The Principles of Mechanics, Presented in a New Form. Translated by Jones, D. E. and Walley, J. T.. New York: Dover. Originally published as Prinzipien der Mechanik.Google Scholar
Horwich, Paul (1990), Truth. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. I. G. (1997), “Models and Representation”, Models and Representation 64:S325–S336.Google Scholar
Ibarra, Andoni, and Mormann, Thomas (2001), “Una teoría combinatoria de las teorías científicas”, Una teoría combinatoria de las teorías científicas 32(95).Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul (1972), Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percival, Ian (1999), Quantum State Diffusion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard (1980), Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Suárez, Mauricio (1999), “Theories, Models and Representations”, in Magnani, L. et al. (eds.), Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery. New York: Kluwer Academic Press, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez, Mauricio (2003), “Scientific Representation: Against Similarity and Isomorphism”, Scientific Representation: Against Similarity and Isomorphism 17(3): 225–244.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas (1994), “Interpretation of Science: Science as Interpretation”, in Higevoord, J. (ed.), Physics and Our View of the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas (2000), “The Theory of Tragedy and of Science: Does Nature Have Narrative Structure?”, in Sfendoni-Metzou, Demetra (ed.), Aristotle and Contemporary Science, Vol. 1. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Williams, Michael (1996), Unnatural Doubts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wollheim, Richard (1987), Painting as an Art. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Wright, Crispin (1992), Truth and Objectivity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar