Skip to main content
Log in

Explaining Referential Stability of Physics Concepts: The Semantic Embedding Approach

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal for General Philosophy of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper discusses three different ways of explaining the referential stability of concepts of physics. In order to be successful, an approach to referential stability has to provide resources to understand what constitutes the difference between the birth of a new concept with a history of its own, and an innovative step occurring within the lifetime of a persisting concept with stable reference. According to Theodore Arabatzis’ ‘biographical’ approach (Representing Electrons 2006), the historical continuity of representations of the electron manifests itself by the numerical stability of experimental parameters like the charge-to-mass ratio, and the continued acceptance of earlier experiments as manifestations of electron properties. I argue, against Arabatzis’ approach, that the stability of experimental parameters justifies the assumption that there exists a chain of representations of a unique theoretical entity only if this stability occurs against the background of evidence for theoretical continuity. The Bain/Norton approach proposes to add exactly this element to the picture, but fails to reach its aim by focusing on formal similarities of Hamiltonians as an indicator of theoretical continuity. I shall argue that theoretical continuity has to be demonstrated rather on the level of particular solutions. This task is accomplished by the semantic embedding approach by means of defining a co-reference criterion for theoretical terms requiring the existence of semantic embedding relations between the terms that occur in particular solutions of different theories.

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

Access this article

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

Notes

  1. While the dominant movement in the historiography of science has turned away from the “history of ideas” approach to scientific concepts, Theodore Arabatzis takes scientific concepts to be particular historical entities of their own that persist over time. According to his view, the historian of science aims at reconstructions of the ‘biography’ of scientific concepts (cf. Arabatzis 2006, p. 45f). Arabatzis’ position seems to compromise between the “history of ideas” and the experimentalist approach, by emphasizing the unity of scientific concepts throughout history, on the one hand, but, on the other hand, grounding that unity in the changing experimental practices and theoretical contexts that shape a concept during its lifetime.

  2. See Pinnick and Gale (2000) for an illuminating perspective on the dispute between ‘classical’ reconstructive and historically based accounts in the philosophy of science.

  3. Arabatzis (2006, p. 18).

  4. Arabatzis (2006, p. 18).

  5. Arabatzis (2006, p. 16).

  6. Cf. Arabatzis (2006, p. 255).

  7. Cf. Arabatzis (2006, p. 255).

  8. Cf. Arabatzis (2006, p. 256).

  9. Cf. Arabatzis (2006, p. 257).

  10. Cf. Arabatzis (2006, p. 257).

  11. Cf. Arabatzis (2006, p. 259).

  12. Cf. Arabatzis (2006, p. 58).

  13. Arabatzis (2006, p. 104f).

  14. Arabatzis (2006, p. 107).

  15. Arabatzis (2006, p. 107).

  16. Arabatzis (2006, p. 114).

  17. Arabatzis (2006, p. 115).

  18. Arabatzis (2006, p. 115).

  19. Norton (2000, p. 71).

  20. Norton (2000, p. 70).

  21. Norton (2000, p. 70).

  22. Arabatzis (2006, p. 143).

  23. Bain and Norton (2001, p. 452/53).

  24. Bain and Norton (2001, p. 456).

  25. Bain and Norton (2001, p. 456).

  26. Cf. Scheibe (1997/1999).

  27. Cf. Ohanian (1976, p. 87ff).

  28. Cf. Wald (1984, p. 124).

  29. From this relation we obviously cannot infer any ontological similarity of the two accounts. The Heisenberg formalism is mathematically equivalent to the Schrödinger formulation, but does in no way entail assumptions about electron orbits. This shows that semantic embedding relations constitute the identity of concepts, but do not contribute to an assimilation of the ontologies connected to their different theoretical representations.

  30. Cf. Peitgen/Jürgens/Saupe 1994, p. 247f.

  31. Kornblith (2002, p. 29).

  32. Arabatzis (2006, pp. 245/46).

  33. Actually, there is no single entity that causes the observable facts once attributed to phlogiston. Some of those facts (e.g., oxidation) are now attributed to oxygen, while others are attributed to hydrogen, e.g., when Cavendish discovered hydrogen he thought it was pure phlogiston. (I owe this point to Theodore Arabatzis).

  34. Nola (1980, p. 509).

  35. Kroon (1985, p. 162).

References

  • Achinstein, P. (1968). Concepts of science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, H., Barker, P., & Chen, X. (2006). The cognitive structure of scientific revolutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arabatzis, T. (2006). Representing electrons, a biographical approach to theoretical entities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arabatzis, T. (2008). The problem of conceptual change in the philosophy and history of science. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain, J., & Norton, J. D. (2001). What should philosophers of science learn from the history of the electron?. In J. Z. Buchwald, & A. Warwick (Eds.) The birth of microphysics (pp. 451–465). Cambridge Mass: MIT-Press.

  • Bartels, A. (1996). Chains of meaning: A model for concept formation in contemporary physics theories. Synthese, 105, 347–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daston, L. (Ed.). (2000). Biographies of scientific objects. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galison, P. (1995). Context and constraints. In J. Z. Buchwald (Ed.). Scientific practice (pp. 13–41). Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  • Kornblith, H. (2002). Knowledge and its place in nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kroon, F. W. (1985). Theoretical terms and the causal view of reference. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63, 2, 143–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. (1984). Faraday to Einstein: Constructing meaning in scientific theories. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. (2008a). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge Mass: MIT-Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. (2008b). Mental modeling in conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 391–416). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nola, R. (1980). Fixing the reference of theoretical terms. Philosophy of Science, 47, 505–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, J. D. (2000). How we know about electrons. In R. Nola & H. Sankey (Eds.), After Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend (pp. 67–97). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohanian, H. C. (1976). Gravitation and spacetime. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peitgen, H.-O., Jürgens, H., & Saupe, D. (1994). Chaos, Bausteine der Ordnung. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinnick, C., & Gale, G. (2000). Philosophy of science and history of science: A troubling interaction. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 31, 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheibe, E. (1997/1999). Die Reduktion physikalischer Theorien. Ein Beitrag zur Einheit der Physik, Teil I und II, Berlin: Springer.

  • Shapere, D. (1984). Reason and the search for knowledge: Investigations in the philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wald, R. M. (1984). General relativity. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Theodore Arabatzis and two anonymous referees for their extremely helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Bartels.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bartels, A. Explaining Referential Stability of Physics Concepts: The Semantic Embedding Approach. J Gen Philos Sci 41, 267–281 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-010-9127-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-010-9127-8

Keywords

Navigation