Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T10:17:31.795Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Science as Representation: Flouting the Criteria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Bas C. van Fraassen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Criteria of adequacy for scientific representation of the phenomena pertain to accuracy and truth. But that representation is selective and may require distortion even in the selected parameters; this point is intimately connected with the fact that representation is intentional, and its adequacy relative to its particular purpose. Since observation and measurement are perspectival and the appearances to be saved are perspectival measurement outcomes, the question whether this “saving” is an explanatory relation provides a new focus for the realist/antirealist debate. The Born rule and von Neumann's “collapse” postulate in quantum mechanics provide a telling case for this question in recent physics.

Type
The Pragmatics of Scientific Representation
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 71 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers , December 2004 , pp. 794 - 804
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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

Bedard, K. (1999), “Material Objects in Bohm’s Interpretation”, Material Objects in Bohm’s Interpretation 66:221–242.Google Scholar
Bub, Jeffrey (1997), Interpreting the Quantum World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. (2000), “The Perspectival Nature of Scientific Observation”, paper delivered at PSA 2000, November 4, 2000. Vancouver, British Columbia.Google Scholar
Gombrich, Ernst Hans (1960), Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Hockney, David (2001), Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters. New York: Penguin Putnam.Google Scholar
Lopes, Dominic (1996), Understanding Pictures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schrödinger, Erwin (1953), “The Meaning of Wave Mechanics”, in George, A., Louis de Broglie: Physicien et Penseur. Paris: Editions Albin Michel, 16–30.Google Scholar
Stone, A. (1994), “Does the Bohm Theory Solve the Measurement Problem?” Philosophy of Science 61:250–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1982), “Rational Belief and the Common Cause Principle”, in McLaughlin, Robert (ed.), What? Where? When? Why? Essays in Honor of Wesley Salmon. Dordrecht: Reidel, 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1991), Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1994), “Interpretation of QM: Parallels and Choices”, in Accardi, Luigi (ed.), The Interpretation of Quantum Theory: Where Do We Stand? Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana (distributed by Fordham University Press), 7–14.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1997), “Modal Interpretation of Repeated Measurement: Reply to Leeds and Healey”, Modal Interpretation of Repeated Measurement: Reply to Leeds and Healey 64:669–676.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1998), review of Bub 1997, Foundations of Physics 28:683–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, J. (1957), “Assessment of Everett’s ‘Relative State’ Formulation of Quantum Theory”, Assessment of Everett’s ‘Relative State’ Formulation of Quantum Theory 29:463–465.Google Scholar