Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T04:41:30.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Is the Use of Diagrams in Theoretical Modeling?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2013

Anouk Barberousse
Anouk Barberousse*
Affiliation:
Lille University of Science and Technology Email: anouk.barberousse@univ-lille1.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

The use of diagrams is pervasive in theoretical physics. Together with mathematical formulae and natural language, diagrams play a major role in theoretical modeling. They enrich the expressive power of physicists and help them to explore new theoretical ideas. Diagrams are not only heuristic or pedagogical tools, but they are also tools that enable developing the content of models into novel implications.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 26 , Special Issue 2: Knowledge in the Making , June 2013 , pp. 345 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

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.)

References

Baigrie, Brian, ed. 1996. Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Concerning the Use of Art in Science. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barberousse, Anouk, and Ludwig, Pascal. 2009. “Models as Fictions.” In Fictions in Science: Philosophical Essays on Modeling and Idealisation, edited by Barberousse, Anouk and Ludwig, Pascal, 56–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Black, Max. 1962. Models and Metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohr, Niels. 1913. “On the constitution of atoms and molecules.” Philosophical Magazine 26:1–25, 476–502, 857–875.Google Scholar
Bohr, Nils. 1914. “Atomic models and X-ray spectra.” Nature 92 (2307):553–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavanagh, Patrick. 1995. “Vision Is Getting Easier Everyday.” Perception 24:1227–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chadarevian, Soraya de, and Hopwood, Nick. 2004. Models: The Third Dimension of Science. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandrasekaran, Bharath, Glasgow, Janice, and Narayanan, N. Hari, eds. 1995. Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Currie, Gregory. 1990. The Nature of Fiction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duhem, Pierre. 1906. La Théorie physique, son objet, sa structure. Paris: Gauthier-Villars.Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre. 1991. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Eugene S. 1977. “The Mind's Eye: Non-Verbal Thought in Technology.” Science 197 (4306):827–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frigg, Roman. 2010. “Models and Fiction.” Synthese 172 (2):251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gennes, Pierre-Gilles de. 1981. “Polymer solutions near an interface. 1. Adsorption and depletion layers.” Macromolecules 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gennes, Pierre-Gilles de. 1987. “Polymers at an interface. A simplified view.” Advances in colloid and interface science 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. 1996. “Visual Models and Scientific Judgment.” In Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Concerning the Use of Art in Science, edited by Baigrie, Brian, 269–302. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. 2004. “How models are used to represent reality.” Philosophy of Science 71:742–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2006. “The strategy of model-based science.” Biology and Philosophy 21:725–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2008. “Abstractions, idealizations, and evolutionary biology.” In Mapping the Future of Biology: Evolving Concepts and Theories, edited by Barberousse, Anouk, Morange, M., and Pradeu, T., 47–56. Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
Hammer, Eric. 1995. “Reasoning with Sentences and Diagrams.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 35 (1):73–87.Google Scholar
Hopkins, Robert. 1998. Picture, Image, and Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, Richard I. G. 1997. “Models and Representation.” Philosophy of Science 64:S325–S336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, Richard I. G. 1999. “The Ising Model, Computer Simulation, and Universal Physics.” In Models as Mediators. Perspectives on Natural and Social Science, edited by Morgan, Mary S. and Morrison, Margaret, 97–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, Paul. 2004. Extending Ourselves. Computational Science, Empiricism and Scientific Method. Oxord: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, David. 2005. Drawing Theories Apart: The Dispersion of Feynman Diagrams in Postwar Physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, John M. 1974. A Psychology of Picture Perception. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
Kulvick, John. 2006. On Pictures: Their Structure and Content. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Laymon, Richard. 1991. “Computer simulations, idealizations and approximations.” PSA 2:519–534.Google Scholar
Lopes, Dominic M. 1996. Understanding Pictures. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Lopes, Dominic M. 2009. “Drawing in a Social Science: Lithic Illustration.” Perspectives on Science 17: 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Michael. 1988. “The Externalized Retina: Selection and Mathematization in the Visual Documentation of Objects in the Life Sciences.” Human Studies 11:201–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Mary S., and Morrison, Margaret, eds. 1999. Models as Mediators. Perspectives on Natural and Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mancosu, Paolo, Jørgensen, Klaus, and Pedersen, Stig, eds. 2005. Visualization, Explanation and Reasoning Styles in Mathematics. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perini, Laura. 2004. “Convention, Resemblance and Isomorphism: Understanding Scientific Visual Representations.” In Multidisciplinary Approaches to Visual Representations and Interpretations, edited by Malcom, Grant, 37–47. Elsevier JAPAN: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Perini, Laura. 2005a. “Explanation in Two Dimensions: Diagrams and Biological Models.” Biology & Philosophy 20 (2–3):257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perini, Laura. 2005b. “The Truth in Pictures.” Philosophy of Science 72 (1):262–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perini, Laura. 2005c. “Visual Representations and Confirmation.” Philosophy of Science 72 (5):913–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preyer, Gerhard, and Peter, Georg, eds. 2005. Contextualism in Philosophy. Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, Michael. 1980. “Models in Physics.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 31:145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudwick, Martin J. S. 1976. The Meaning of Fossils: Essays in the History of Paleontology. Elsevier JAPAN: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Shin, Sun-Joo, 1994. The Logical Status of Diagrams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sommerfeld, Arnold. 1921. Atombau und Spektrallinien, 2nd edn.Braunschweig: Ferdinand Viehweg u. Sohn.Google Scholar
Suarez, Mauricio. 2009. Fictions in Science: Philosophical Essays on Modeling and Idealisation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thomson-Jones, Martin. 2005. “Idealization and abstraction: A framework.” In Idealization XII: Correcting the Model, Idealization and Abstraction in the Sciences, edited by Thomson-Jones, Martin and Cartwright, Nancy, 173–217. Warsaw: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Kendall. 1990. Mimesis as Make-Believe. On the Foundations of the Representational Arts. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Willats, John. 1997. Art and Representation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Willats, John. 2003. “Optical laws or symbolic rules? The dual nature of pictorial systems.” In Looking into Pictures, edited by Hecht, Heiko, Schwartz, Robert, and Atherton, Margaret, 125–144. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, John. 2010. Fictions and Models: New Essays. Munich: Philosophia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar