Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-6fdxz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-03T23:25:51.837Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Models, Representation, and Mediation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Tarja Knuuttila
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Representation has been one of the main themes in the recent discussion of models. Several authors have argued for a pragmatic approach to representation that takes users and their interpretations into account. It appears to me, however, that this emphasis on representation places excessive limitations on our view of models and their epistemic value. Models should rather be thought of as epistemic artifacts through which we gain knowledge in diverse ways. Approaching models this way stresses their materiality and media-specificity. Focusing on models as multifunctional artifacts releases them from any preestablished and fixed representational relationships and leads me to argue for a twofold approach to representation.

Information

Type
Science Models
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 72 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2004 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers , December 2005 , pp. 1260 - 1271
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

References

Bailer-Jones, Daniela (2003), “When Scientific Models Represent”, When Scientific Models Represent 17:59–74.Google Scholar
Baird, Davis (2003), “Thing Knowledge”, in Radder, Hans (ed.), The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Max (1962), Models and Metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boumans, Marcel (1999), “Built-in Justification”, in Morgan, Mary and Morrison, Margaret, (eds.), Models as Mediators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 66–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Andy (1997), Being There: Putting the Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
da Costa, Newton, and French, Steven (2000), “Models, Theories, and Structures: Thirty Years On”, Models, Theories, and Structures: Thirty Years On 67 (Proceedings): S116–S127.Google Scholar
de Chadarevian, Soraya, and Hopwood, Nick, eds. (2004), Models: The Third Dimension of Science. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
French, Steven, and Ladyman, James (1999), “Reinflating the Semantic Approach”, Reinflating the Semantic Approach 13:103–121.Google Scholar
Frigg, Roman (2002), Models and Representation: Why Structures Are Not Enough. Measurement in Physics and Economics Discussion Paper Series. London: London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter (1997), Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. (1988), Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. (2002), “How Models Are Used to Represent Physical Reality”, paper presented at PSA2002, available at http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. (2004), “How Models Are Used to Represent Physical Reality”, How Models Are Used to Represent Physical Reality 71:742–752.Google Scholar
Hesse, Mary (1966), Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Paul (2002), “Computational Models”, Computational Models 69 (Proceedings): S1–S11.Google Scholar
Klein, Ursula (2003), Experiments, Models, Paper Tools: Cultures of Organic Chemistry in the Nineteenth Century. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Knuuttila, Tarja (2002), “Materially Virtual: Models as Epistemic Artefacts”, paper presented at the EASST 2002 Conference, York.Google Scholar
Knuuttila, Tarja, and Voutilainen, Atro (2003), “A Parser as an Epistemic Artefact: A Material View on Models”, A Parser as an Epistemic Artefact: A Material View on Models 70:1484–1495.Google Scholar
Morrison, Margaret, and Morgan, Mary S. (1999), “Models as Mediating Instruments”, in Morgan, Mary S. and Morrison, Margaret (eds.), Models as Mediators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 10–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plutynski, Anya (2001), “Modeling Evolution in Theory and Practice”, Modeling Evolution in Theory and Practice 68 (Proceedings): S225–S236.Google Scholar
Suárez, Mauricio (2003), “Scientific Representation: Against Similarity and Isomorphism”, Scientific Representation: Against Similarity and Isomorphism 17:225–244.Google Scholar
Suárez, Mauricio (2004), “An Inferential Conception of Scientific Representation”, An Inferential Conception of Scientific Representation 71:767–779.Google Scholar
Sugden, Robert (2002), “Credible Worlds: The Status of the Theoretical Models in Economics”, in Mäki, Uskali (ed.), Fact and Fiction in Economics: Models, Realism, and Social Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, Patrick (1962), “Models of Data”, in Nagel, Ernest, Suppes, Patrick, and Tarski, Alfred (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 252–61.Google Scholar