Synthese 193 (9):2761-2778 (2016)

Authors
Martin King
Universität Bonn
Abstract
The focus in the literature on scientific explanation has shifted in recent years towards model-based approaches. In recent work, Alisa Bokulich has argued that idealization has a central role to play in explanation. Bokulich claims that certain highly-idealized, structural models can be explanatory, even though they are not considered explanatory by causal, mechanistic, or covering law accounts of explanation. This paper focuses on Bokulich’s account in order to make the more general claim that there are problems with maintaining that a structural criterion can capture the way that highly-idealized models explain. This paper examines Bokulich’s claim that the structural model explanation of quantum wavefunction scarring, featuring semiclassical mechanics, is deeper than the explanation provided by the local quantum model. The challenge for Bokulich is to show that the semiclassical model answers a wider range of w-questions, as this is her method of assessing structural information. I look at two reasonable approaches employing w-questions, and I argue that neither approach is ultimately satisfactory. Because structural similarity has preferences for more fundamental models, I argue that the local quantum model provides explanations that at least as deep as the semiclassical ones. The criterion either wrongly identifies all models as explanatory, or prefers models from fundamental theory. Either way, it cannot capture the way that highly-idealized models explain.
Keywords Explanation  Semiclassical  Quantum  Structural  Scientific model  Woodward  Bokulich  Depth
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2016
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-015-0885-z
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

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

How the Laws of Physics Lie.Nancy Cartwright - 1983 - Oxford University Press.
Studies in the Logic of Explanation.Carl Hempel & Paul Oppenheim - 1948 - Philosophy of Science 15 (2):135-175.

View all 29 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Idealizations and Understanding: Much Ado About Nothing?Emily Sullivan & Kareem Khalifa - 2019 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 97 (4):673-689.
An Inferential Account of Model Explanation.Wei Fang - 2019 - Philosophia 47 (1):99-116.
Explanatory Integration.Andrew Wayne - 2017 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science:1-19.
Explanatory Integration.Andrew Wayne - 2018 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 8 (3):347-365.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Expanding the Scope of Explanatory Idealization.Andrew Wayne - 2011 - Philosophy of Science 78 (5):830-841.
Darcy's Law and Structural Explanation in Hydrology.James R. Hofmann & Paul A. Hofmann - 1992 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:23 - 35.
How Scientific Models Can Explain.Alisa Bokulich - 2011 - Synthese 180 (1):33 - 45.
Can Classical Structures Explain Quantum Phenomena?Alisa Bokulich - 2008 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (2):217-235.
Pragmatic Idealization and Structuralist Reconstructions of Theories.Michaela Haase - 1996 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 27 (2):215-234.
Explanation and Laws.Alexander Bird - 1999 - Synthese 120 (1):1--18.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-12-05

Total views
405 ( #17,671 of 2,404,065 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
57 ( #13,303 of 2,404,065 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes