Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T17:45:27.732Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Pragmatic Analysis of Idealizations in Physics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

William F. Barr
William F. Barr*
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Cortland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A brief discussion is offered of what it means to say that a set of statements provides D-N explanation with special emphasis given to approximative D-N explanation. An idealized theory is seen to provide approximative D-N explanation. An ideal case provides explanation only if postulates are offered which connect the ideal antecedent condition with actual conditions. Such postulates will help in accounting for deviations between what the consequent of the ideal case entails and what actually occurs. Three ways are presented for deciding on the acceptability of idealizations: (i) as actual conditions more closely approximate the ideal antecedent conditions specified in an ideal case, the more closely actual cases ought to approximate the consequent of the ideal case; (ii) the additional postulates connecting ideal antecedent conditions with actual conditions ought to account for deviations between what is entailed by an idealized theory and what actually occurs ; and (iii) an idealized theory is explained by a more general theory when certain state variables in the more general theory are given extreme values. It is argued that (iii) is not a necessary condition for the acceptability of idealizations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , March 1974 , pp. 48 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 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.)

Footnotes

†

The preparation of this paper was supported by a Faculty Research Fellowship from the State University of New York.

References

REFERENCES

[1] Ackermann, R. “Deductive Scientific Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 32 (1965): 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Ackermann, R. and Stenner, A. “A Corrected Model of Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 33 (1966): 166–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Barr, W. F. “A Syntactic and Semantic Analysis of Idealizations in Science.” Philosophy of Science 38 (1971): 258–272.10.1086/288360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Dray, W. Laws and Explanation in History. London: Oxford University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
[5] Eberle, R., Kaplan, D., and Montague, R. “Hempel and Oppenheim on Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 28 (1961): 418–428.10.1086/287828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Galilei, Galileo. Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences. Translated by H. Crew and A. de Salvio. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1950.Google Scholar
[7] Goodman, N. Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1965.Google Scholar
[8] Hanson, N. R. “Leverrier: The Zenith and Nadir of Classical Mechanics.” Isis 53 (1962): 359–378.Google Scholar
[9] Hempel, C. G. Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press, 1965.Google Scholar
[10] Hempel, C. Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1966.Google Scholar
[11] Hempel, C. and Oppenheim, P. “The Logic of Explanation.” in Readings in the Philosophy of Science. Edited by Feigl, H. and Brodbeck, M. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953. Pages 337–350.Google Scholar
[12] Humphreys, W. C. Anomalies and Scientific Theories. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper & Company, 1968.Google Scholar
[13] Jevons, W. S. The Principles of Science: A Treatise on Logic and the Scientific Method. New York: Dover Publications, 1958.Google Scholar
[14] Jobe, E. K. “Some Recent Work on the Problem of Law.” Philosophy of Science 34 (1967): 363–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15] Kaplan, D. “Explanation Revisited.” Philosophy of Science 28 (1961): 429–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16] Kim, J. “On the Logical Conditions of Deductive Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 30 (1963): 286–291.10.1086/287943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17] Lauter, H. A. “An Examination of Reichenbach on Laws.” Philosophy of Science 37 (1970): 131–145.10.1086/288286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18] Mach, E. The Science of Mechanics. Translated by T. J. McCormack. LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company, 1960.Google Scholar
[19] Nagel, E. The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961.10.1119/1.1937571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20] Pap, A. “Disposition Concepts and Extensional Logic.” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Edited by Feigl, H., Scriven, M., and Maxwell, G. Volume II. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1958. Pages 196–224.Google Scholar
[21] Pap, A. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. New York: Free Press, 1962.Google Scholar
[22] Reichenbach, H. Nomological Statements and Admissible Operations. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1954.Google Scholar
[23] Rudner, R. S. Philosophy of Social Science. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1966.Google Scholar
[24] Scheffler, I. The Anatomy of Inquiry. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963.Google Scholar
[25] Scriven, M. “The Key Property of Physical Laws—Inaccuracy.” in Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science. Edited by Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Pages 91–101.Google Scholar
[26] Scriven, M. “The Limits of Physical Explanation.” in Philosophy of Science: The Delaware Seminar. Edited by Baumrin, B. Volume 2. New York: Interscience Publishers, 1963. Pages 107–135.Google Scholar
[27] Smart, J. J. C. Between Science and Philosophy. New York: Random House, 1968.Google Scholar
[28] Whittaker, E. From Euclid to Eddington. New York: Dover Publications, 1958.Google Scholar
[29] Whittaker, E. A History of Aether and Electricity. Volume II. New York: Philosophical Library, 1954.Google Scholar