David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 26 (3):241-257 (2012)
The similarity view of scientific representation has recently been subjected to strong criticism. Much of this criticism has been directed against a ?naive? similarity account, which tries to explain representation solely in terms of similarity between scientific models and the world. This article examines the more sophisticated account offered by the similarity view's leading proponent, Ronald Giere. In contrast to the naive account, Giere's account appeals to the role played by the scientists using a scientific model. A similar move is often made by defenders of resemblance theories of depiction, who invoke the role played by the artist, or by the viewers of a painting. In this article I look to debates over depiction to assess the difficulties facing those who wish to defend the similarity view of scientific representation. I then turn to examine Giere's account. Ultimately, I argue, this account is unsuccessful: while appealing to the role of scientists offers a promising way to defend the similarity view, Giere's own account does not capture what it is that scientists do when they use a model to represent the world
|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
Kendall L. Walton (1990). Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts. Harvard University Press.
Bas C. Van Fraassen (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford University Press.
Nelson Goodman (1968). Languages of Art. Bobbs-Merrill.
Peter Godfrey-Smith (2006). The Strategy of Model-Based Science. Biology and Philosophy 21 (5):725-740.
Ronald N. Giere (1999). Science Without Laws. University of Chicago Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Michael Poznic (forthcoming). Representation and Similarity: Suárez on Necessary and Sufficient Conditions of Scientific Representation. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie:1-17.
Similar books and articles
Alistair M. C. Isaac (2013). Objective Similarity and Mental Representation. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91 (4):683-704.
Mauricio Suarez (2003). Scientific Representation: Against Similarity and Isomorphism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17 (3):225-244.
Adam Toon (2010). Models as Make-Believe. In Roman Frigg & Matthew Hunter (eds.), Beyond Mimesis and Convention: Representation in Art and Science. Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science
Steffen Ducheyne (2012). Scientific Representations as Limiting Cases. Erkenntnis 76 (1):73-89.
Gabriele Contessa (2007). Representing Reality: The Ontology of Scientific Models and Their Representational Function. Dissertation, University of London
Ronald Giere (2010). An Agent-Based Conception of Models and Scientific Representation. Synthese 172 (2):269–281.
Arthur B. Markman & Takashi Yamauchi (1998). Boundary Conditions and the Need for Multiple Forms of Representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):477-478.
Geoffrey Gorham (1996). Similarity as an Intertheory Relation. Philosophy of Science 63 (3):229.
Roman Frigg (2006). Scientific Representation and the Semantic View of Theories. Theoria 21 (1):49-65.
David B. Resnik (1993). Critical Discussion. Erkenntnis 38 (2):261 - 271.
Christopher Gauker (2007). A Critique of the Similarity Space Theory of Concepts. Mind and Language 22 (4):317–345.
Todd M. Bailey (2005). Rules Work on One Representation; Similarity Compares Two Representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):16-16.
Added to index2012-12-12
Total downloads40 ( #103,189 of 1,907,057 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #129,704 of 1,907,057 )
How can I increase my downloads?