David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42 (2):195-226 (1991)
Several philosophers of science have claimed that the correspondence principle can be generalized from quantum physics to all of (particularly physical) science and that in fact it constitutes one of the major heuristical rules for the construction of new theories. In order to evaluate these claims, first the use of the correspondence principle in (the genesis of) quantum mechanics will be examined in detail. It is concluded from this and from other examples in the history of science that the principle should be qualified with respect to its nature and relativized with respect to its scope of application. At the same time this conclusion implies a qualification and a relativization of the heuristic power of the principle. Generally speaking, intertheoretical correspondence is primarily of a formal-mathematical and empirical but not of a conceptual nature. Moreover, it only applies to certain parts of the theories involved. Finally, a number of philosophical justifications of the principle are discussed and some conclusions are drawn concerning the debates on theory reduction and on the discovery-justification distinction.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Robert W. Batterman (1995). Theories Between Theories: Asymptotic Limiting Intertheoretic Relations. Synthese 103 (2):171 - 201.
Henk W. de Regt (2001). Spacetime Visualisation and the Intelligibility of Physical Theories. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 32 (2):243-265.
Reza Maleeh & Parisa Amani (2014). Pragmatism, Bohr, and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 27 (4):353-367.
Stephan Hartmann (2002). On Correspondence. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 33 (1):79-94.
Mark Newman (2010). The No-Miracles Argument, Reliabilism, and a Methodological Version of the Generality Problem. Synthese 177 (1):111 - 138.
Similar books and articles
Craig Dilworth (1994). Principles, Laws, Theories and the Metaphysics of Science. Synthese 101 (2):223 - 247.
Gordon Belot & John Earman (1997). Chaos Out of Order: Quantum Mechanics, the Correspondence Principle and Chaos. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 28 (2):147-182.
Scott Tanona (2004). Idealization and Formalism in Bohr's Approach to Quantum Theory. Philosophy of Science 71 (5):683-695.
Frederick M. Kronz (1998). Nonseparability and Quantum Chaos. Philosophy of Science 65 (1):50-75.
Lieven Decock (2008). The Conceptual Basis of Numerical Abilities: One-to-One Correspondence Versus the Successor Relation. Philosophical Psychology 21 (4):459 – 473.
Anthony Duncan & Michel Janssen, On the Verge of Umdeutung in Minnesota: Van Vleck and the Correspondence Principle.
Michael J. Shaffer (2008). Re-Formulating the Correspondence Principle: Problems and Prospects. Polish Journal of Philosophy 2 (1):99-115.
Stephan Hartmann (2008). Modeling High-Temperature Superconductors: Correspondence at Bay? In Lena Soler (ed.), Rethinking Scientific Change. Stabilities, Ruptures, Incommensurabilities? Springer 107--128.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads211 ( #12,519 of 1,793,164 )
Recent downloads (6 months)71 ( #9,039 of 1,793,164 )
How can I increase my downloads?