Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Science fictions: Comment on Godfrey-Smith

  • Published:
Philosophical Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This is a comment on Peter Godfrey-Smith’s, “Models and Fictions in Science”. The comments explore problems he raises if we treat model systems as fictions in a naturalized and deflationary framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barberousse, A., & Ludwig, P. (2009). Models as fictions. In M. Suaréz (Ed.), Fictions in science: Philosophical essays on modeling and idealization (pp. 56–76). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bokulich, A. (2008). Can classical structures explain quantum phenomena? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59(2), 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1909). The influence of Darwinism on philosophy. In J. M. Capps & D. Capps (Eds.), James and Dewey on belief and experience (pp. 179–188). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, A. (1993). Fictionalism. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 18, 1–18. (Reprinted in M. Suarez (Ed.), Fictions in science: Philosophical essays on modeling and idealization) (pp. 19–35). London: Routledge.

  • Frigg, R. Models and fiction. To appear in Synthese (forthcoming).

  • Galilei, G. (1630). Dialogue concerning Two Chief World Systems. S. Drake (trans.) New York: Modern Library, 2001.

  • Godfrey-Smith, P. Models and fictions in science. Philosophical Studies. doi:10.1007/s11098-008-9313-2.

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellars, W. (1961). The language of theories. In H. Feigl & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Current issues in the philosophy science. New York: Henry Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suaréz, M. (2004). An inferential conception of scientific representation. Philosophy of Science, 71, 767–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suaréz, M. (Ed.). (2009). Scientific fictions as rules of inference. In Fictions in science: Philosophical essays on modeling and idealization (pp. 158–178). London: Routledge.

  • Thomson-Jones, M. Missing systems and the face value practice. To appear in Synthese (forthcoming).

  • Toulmin, S. (1961). Foresight and understanding. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaihinger, H. (1911). Die Philosophie des Als Ob. Berlin: Verlag von Reuther & Reichard. Translated as The Philosophy of ‘As If’ by C. K. Ogden. London: Kegan Paul, 1924.

  • Walton, K. (1993). Metaphor and prop oriented make-believe. European Journal of Philosophy, 1, 39–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

My thanks to Peter Godfrey-Smith, Richard Boyd and the participants in the Oberlin Colloquium for challenging comments and questions. I am especially grateful to Martin Thomson-Jones who helped me understand the issues better and so, I hope, to deal with them them more effectively.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Washington, Box 353350, Seattle, WA, 98195-3350, USA

    Arthur Fine

Authors
  1. Arthur Fine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arthur Fine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fine, A. Science fictions: Comment on Godfrey-Smith. Philos Stud 143, 117–125 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-008-9310-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-008-9310-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation