Scientific Representations as Limiting Cases

Abstract

In this essay, I shall show first of all that the socalled inferential (Suárez 2003 and and interpretational (Contessa 2007) accounts of scientific representation are respectively unsatisfactory and too weak to account for scientific representation (pars destruens). Along the way, I shall also argue that the pragmatic similarity (Giere 2004 and2010) and the partial isomorphism (da Costa andFrench 2003 andFrench 2003) accounts are unable to single out scientific representation. In the pars construens I spell out a limiting case account which has explanatory surplus vis à vis the approaches which I have previously reviewed. My account offers an adequate treatment of scientific representation, or so I shall try to argue. Central to my account is the notion of a pragmatic limiting case, which will be characterized in due course.

Reproductive Justice in the Hindu Balinese Compound: Community, Property and Development

“…Combining all these features, we focus on land as an explanation within a period of 4 months-May-June and August-September 2022-from Penglipuran, Ubud, Bali. The combination of an urban area and an urban village, Penglipuran, is a particular scientific representation (Ducheyne, 2012): a limiting case that offers important features to address our research questions. What is the nature of the pressure on Balinese women?…”

“…First was by choosing a limiting case: Penglipuran. Scientifically, a limiting case does not require representativeness (Ducheyne, 2012). Second, the constitution or awig-awig of Penglipuran ( Awig-awig Desa Adat Penglipuran , 1989) was carefully analyzed with the help of the klian of Penglipuran, in whom the authority for interpretation and implementation are invested.…”

True Griceanism: Filling the Gaps in Callender and Cohen’s Account of Scientific Representation

“…Callender and Cohen's approach has been criticized by many authors (Toon 2010;Bueno and French 2011;Peschard 2011;Ducheyne 2012;Frigg and Nguyen 2017). In this article, I focus on two main criticisms, which are to my knowledge the most developed in the literature and which happen to be complementary: Liu (2015) and Boesch (2017).…”