Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:15:42.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Representing the Relationship between the Mathematical and the Empirical

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Otávio Bueno ,
Steven French  and
James Ladyman
Otávio Bueno
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of South Carolina
Steven French
Affiliation:
Division of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Leeds
James Ladyman*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Bristol
*
Send reprint requests to Otávio Bueno, Department of Philosophy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA; [email protected], or to Steven French, School of Philosophy, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK; [email protected], or to James Ladyman, Department of Philosophy, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TB, UK; [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine, from the partial structures perspective, two forms of applicability of mathematics: at the “bottom” level, the applicability of theoretical structures to the “appearances”, and at the “top” level, the applicability of mathematical to physical theories. We argue that, to accommodate these two forms of applicability, the partial structures approach needs to be extended to include a notion of “partial homomorphism”. As a case study, we present London's analysis of the superfluid behavior of liquid helium in terms of Bose-Einstein statistics. This involved both the introduction of group theory at the top level, and some modeling at the “phenomenological” level, and thus provides a nice example of the relationships we are interested in. We conclude with a discussion of the “autonomy” of London's model.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 69 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 497 - 518
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Born, Max (1937), “The Statistical Mechanics of Condensing Systems”, The Statistical Mechanics of Condensing Systems 4:215–1155.Google Scholar
Brush, Stephen G. (1983), Statistical Physics and the Atomic Theory of Matter. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bueno, Otávio (1997), “Empirical Adequacy: A Partial Structures Approach”, Empirical Adequacy: A Partial Structures Approach 28:585–610.Google Scholar
Bueno, Otávio (1999), “What is Structural Empiricism? Scientific Change in an Empiricist Setting”, What is Structural Empiricism? Scientific Change in an Empiricist Setting 50:59–85.Google Scholar
Bueno, Otávio (forthcoming), “Structures, Applicability of Mathematics and Quasi-Truth”, Department of Philosophy, University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
Bueno, Otávio, and French, Steven (1999), “Infestation or Pest Control: The Introduction of Group Theory into Quantum Mechanics”, Infestation or Pest Control: The Introduction of Group Theory into Quantum Mechanics 22:37–86.Google Scholar
Cartwright Nancy, Towfic Shomar, and Suárez, Mauricio (1995), “The Tool-Box of Science”, in Herfel, William et al. (eds.), Theories and Models in Scientific Processes. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 137–149.Google Scholar
Collier, J.D. (1992), “Critical Notice: Paul Thompson’s The Structure of Biological Theories (1989)”, Critical Notice: Paul Thompson’s The Structure of Biological Theories (1989) 22:287–298.Google Scholar
da Costa, Newton C.A., and French, Steven (1990), “The Model-Theoretic Approach in the Philosophy of Science”, The Model-Theoretic Approach in the Philosophy of Science 57:248–265.Google Scholar
da Costa, Newton C.A., and French, Steven (2000), “Models, Theories and Structures: Thirty Years On”, Models, Theories and Structures: Thirty Years On 67 (Proceedings): S116–S127.Google Scholar
Demopoulos, William, and Friedman, Michael (1985), “Critical Notice: Bertrand Russell’s The Analysis of Matter: Its Historical Context and Contemporary Interest”, Critical Notice: Bertrand Russell’s The Analysis of Matter: Its Historical Context and Contemporary Interest 52:621–639.Google Scholar
Dirac, Paul A.M. (1926), “On the Theory of Quantum Mechanics”, On the Theory of Quantum Mechanics A 112:661–677.Google Scholar
Duck, Ian, and Sudarshan, E.C.G. (1997), Pauli and the Spin-Statistics Theorem. New York: World Scientific Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert (1924), “Quantentheorie des einatomigen idealen Gases”, Quantentheorie des einatomigen idealen Gases 22:261–267.Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert (1925), “Quantentheorie des einatomigen idealen Gases”, Quantentheorie des einatomigen idealen Gases 23:3–16.Google Scholar
Feynman, Richard P. (1953), “The λ transition in liquid helium”, The λ transition in liquid helium 90: 1116.Google Scholar
French, Steven (1997), “Partiality, Pursuit and Practice”, in Dalla Chiara, Maria L. et al. (eds.), Structure and Norms in Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, Steven (1999a), “Models and Mathematics in Physics: The Role of Group Theory”, in Butterfield, Jeremy and Pagonis, Constantine (eds.), From Physics to Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, Steven (1999b), “The Phenomenological Approach to Physics: Essay Review of Fritz London, by Kostas Gavroglu”, The Phenomenological Approach to Physics: Essay Review of Fritz London, by Kostas Gavroglu 30:267–281.Google Scholar
French, Steven, and Ladyman, James (1997), “Superconductivity and Structures: Revisiting the London Account”, Superconductivity and Structures: Revisiting the London Account 28:363–393.Google Scholar
French, Steven, and Ladyman, James (1998), “A Semantic Perspective on Idealisation in Quantum Mechanics”, in Shanks, Niall (ed.), Idealization VIII: Idealization in Contemporary Physics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 51–73.Google Scholar
French, Steven, and Ladyman, James (1999), “Reinflating the Semantic Approach”, Reinflating the Semantic Approach 13:99–117.Google Scholar
Gavroglu, Kostas (1995), Fritz London: A Scientific Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisenberg, Werner (1926a), “Mehrkörperproblem und Resonanz in der Quantenmechanik”, Mehrkörperproblem und Resonanz in der Quantenmechanik 38:411–426.Google Scholar
Heisenberg, Werner (1926b), “Über die Spektra von Atomsystemen mit zwei Elektronen”, Über die Spektra von Atomsystemen mit zwei Elektronen 39:499–518.Google Scholar
Hellman, Geoffrey (1989), Mathematics without Numbers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kahn, Boris, and Uhlenbeck, George E. (1938a), “On the Theory of Condensation”, On the Theory of Condensation 4:1155–1156.Google Scholar
Kahn, Boris, and Uhlenbeck, George E. (1938b), “On the Theory of Condensation”, On the Theory of Condensation 5:399–414.Google Scholar
London, Fritz (1935), “Macroscopical Interpretation of Supraconductivity”, Macroscopical Interpretation of Supraconductivity A152:24–34.Google Scholar
London, Fritz (1937), “A New Conception of Supraconductivity”, A New Conception of Supraconductivity 140:793–796 and 834–836.Google Scholar
London, Fritz (1938a), “The λ-Phenomenon of Liquid Helium and the Bose-Einstein Degeneracy”, The λ-Phenomenon of Liquid Helium and the Bose-Einstein Degeneracy 141:643–644.Google Scholar
London, Fritz (1938b), “On the Bose-Einstein Condensation”, On the Bose-Einstein Condensation 54:947–954.Google Scholar
London, Fritz (1954), Superfluids, Vol. II. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
London, Fritz, and London, Heinz (1935), “The Electromagnetic Equations of the Supraconductor”, The Electromagnetic Equations of the Supraconductor A149:71–88.Google Scholar
Mayer, J. (1937), “The Statistical Mechanics of Condensing Systems, I”, The Statistical Mechanics of Condensing Systems, I 5:67–73.Google Scholar
Mehra, Jagdish (1994), The Beat of a Different Drum. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mikenberg, Irene, da Costa, Newton C.A., and Chuaqui, Rolando (1986), “Pragmatic Truth and Approximation to Truth”, Pragmatic Truth and Approximation to Truth 51:201–221.Google Scholar
Morgan, Marry, and Morrison, Margaret (eds.) (1999), Models as Mediators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pais, Abraham (1982), Subtle is the Lord. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Post, Heinz (1971), “Correspondence, Invariance, and Heurisitcs: In Praise of Conservative Induction”, Correspondence, Invariance, and Heurisitcs: In Praise of Conservative Induction 2:213–255.Google Scholar
Redhead, Michael L.G. (1975), “Symmetry in Intertheory Relations”, Symmetry in Intertheory Relations 32:77–112.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Stewart (1997), Philosophy of Mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Suárez, Mauricio (1999), “The Role of Models in the Applications of Scientific Theories”, in Morgan and Morrison (eds.) (1999), pp. 168–196.Google Scholar
Suppes, Patrick (1962), “Models of Data”, in Nagel, Ernest, Suppes, Patrick, and Tarski, Alfred, Logic, Methodology and the Philosophy of Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 252–267.Google Scholar
Uhlenbeck, George E. (1927), Over statistische Methoden in die Theorie der Quanta. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Leiden, Leiden.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyl, Hermann (1968), Gesammelte Abhandlungen. New York and Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar