Varieties of misrepresentation and homomorphism

Authors
Mauricio Suárez
Complutense University of Madrid
Abstract
This paper is a critical response to Andreas Bartels’ sophisticated defense of a structural account of scientific representation. We show that, contrary to Bartels’ claim, homomorphism fails to account for the phenomenon of misrepresentation. Bartels claims that homomorphism is adequate in two respects. First, it is conceptually adequate, in the sense that it shows how representation differs from misrepresentation and non-representation. Second, if properly weakened, homomorphism is formally adequate to accommodate misrepresentation. We question both claims. First, we show that homomorphism is not the right condition to distinguish representation from misrepresentation and non-representation: a “representational mechanism” actually does all the work, and it is independent of homomorphism – as of any structural condition. Second, we test the claim of formal adequacy against three typical kinds of inaccurate representation in science which, by reference to a discussion of the notorious billiard ball model, we define as abstraction, pretence, and simulation. We first point out that Bartels equivocates between homomorphism and the stronger condition of epimorphism, and that the weakened form of homomorphism that Bartels puts forward is not a morphism at all. After providing a formal setting for abstraction, pretence and simulation, we show that for each morphism there is at least one form of inaccurate representation which is not accommodated. We conclude that Bartels’ theory – while logically laying down the weakest structural requirements – is nonetheless formally inadequate in its own terms. This should shed serious doubts on the plausibility of any structural account of representation more generally
Keywords Scientific representation  Homomorphism  Structuralism  Idealization  Modeling
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13194-015-0125-x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 35,445
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

How the Laws of Physics Lie.Nancy Cartwright - 1983 - Oxford University Press.
The Scientific Image.C. Van Fraassen Bas - 1980 - Oxford University Press.
Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach.Ronald N. Giere - 1988 - Philosophical Review 100 (4):653-656.

View all 28 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Another Proof of Wojtylak's Theorem.Jacek Hawranek & Jan Zygmunt - 1981 - Bulletin of the Section of Logic 10 (2):80-81.
Representation and Truthlikeness.Ilkka Niiniluoto - 2014 - Foundations of Science 19 (4):375-379.
Misrepresentation in Context.Woosuk Park - 2014 - Foundations of Science 19 (4):363-374.
Models as Make-Believe.Adam Toon - 2010 - In Roman Frigg & Matthew Hunter (eds.), Beyond Mimesis and Convention: Representation in Art and Science. Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science.
Exploitable Isomorphism and Structural Representation.Nicholas Shea - 2014 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 114 (2pt2):123-144.
Representational Systems.Tomer Fekete - 2010 - Minds and Machines 20 (1):69-101.
Scientific Representation: Against Similarity and Isomorphism.Mauricio Suarez - 2003 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17 (3):225-244.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-10-03

Total downloads
40 ( #157,937 of 2,285,003 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #163,003 of 2,285,003 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature