Defending the Semantic View: what it takes

Bihan, Soazig Le

doi:10.1007/s13194-011-0026-6

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I thank one of my reviewers for pressing me on this point. Such a semantic based weak account may also have variations similar to those discussed in Le Bihan (2012). However, developing both strong (models-as-mediators) and weak (semantic view) versions of a model-focused interpretation is outside of the scope and goals of my paper.…”

Section: The Relationship Between Models and Theorymentioning

confidence: 93%

ΛCDM and MOND: A debate about models or theory?

Jacquart

2021

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debate between ΛCDM and MOND is often cast in terms of competing gravitational theories. However, recent philosophical discussion suggests that the ΛCDM-MOND debate demonstrates the challenges of multiscale modeling in the context of cosmological scales. I extend this discussion and explore what happens when the debate is thought to be about modeling rather than about theory, offering a model-focused interpretation of the ΛCDM-MOND debate. This analysis shows how a model-focused interpretation of the debate provides a better understanding of challenges associated with extension to a different scale or domain, which are tied to commitments about explanatory fit.

show abstract

Section: The Relationship Between Models and Theorymentioning

confidence: 93%

ΛCDM and MOND: A debate about models or theory?

Jacquart

2021

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, quantum chemistry can be conceived as a scientific discipline build on the basis of models instead of theories. Although all scientific disciplines use models to apply their theories, from a traditional theory-centered view, models are considered as models of a theory: they depend on theories; a model of a theory cannot lead to contradictions with the theory; the corrections (de-idealizations) introduced in the models must either derive from or be legitimized by the corresponding theory (see, for instance , van Fraassen, 1989;da Costa & French, 2003;Le Bihan, 2012). Models in quantum chemistry challenge this traditional view since they integrate conceptual elements coming from different and incompatible theoretical domains.…”

Section: -What Ontology Does Quantum Chemistry Refer To?mentioning

confidence: 99%

About the Ontology of Quantum Chemistry

González

2019

Tópicos (México)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantum chemistry is the branch of chemistry whose primary focus is the application of quantum mechanics to chemical systems at the molecular level. Precisely due to its peculiar position between chemistry and physics, in the last times it has begun to engage the interest of the philosophers of chemistry. Nevertheless, in this philosophical field, quantum chemistry has been studied mainly from a historical viewpoint or from a perspective interested on methodological issues. By contrast, the question that will guide this article is: what kind of ontic items are those studied by quantum chemistry? In order to develop the argumentation, first the relevance of the ontological questions will be addressed. Then, it will be considered in what measure the Born-Oppenheimer approximation and the quantum-chemistry concept of electron fit in the quantum theoretical context. Finally, some issues about what quantum chemistry refers to will be discussed.

show abstract

“…4. See in this regard also Le Bihan (2012) for what she calls the 'modest interpretation of the semantic view', conceived as the "methodological prescription to use model theory as a tool for the rigorous analysis of the structure of what scientists typically use to represent the world in actual practice" (251). theories, claiming that the "severe limitations" of set theory as a possible framework to organize scientific theories should be recognized (see Sneed 1994, 214).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Representational Semantic Conception

Suárez¹,

Pero²

2019

Philos. of Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues for a representational semantic conception (RSC) of scientific theories, which respects the bare claim of any semantic view, namely, that theories can be characterized as sets of models. RSC must be sharply distinguished from structural versions that assume a further identity of 'models' and 'structures', which we reject. The practice turn in the recent philosophical literature suggests instead that modeling must be understood in a deflationary spirit, in terms of the diverse representational practices in the sciences. These insights are applied to some mathematical models, thus showing that the mathematical sciences are not in principle counterexamples to RSC.

show abstract

Defending the Semantic View: what it takes

Cited by 8 publications

References 55 publications

ΛCDM and MOND: A debate about models or theory?

ΛCDM and MOND: A debate about models or theory?

About the Ontology of Quantum Chemistry

The Representational Semantic Conception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About