Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T17:03:22.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond Numerical and Causal Accuracy: Expanding the Set of Justificational Criteria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Jeffry L. Ramsey
Jeffry L. Ramsey*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Until recently, realists and anti-realists alike have assumed that any approximations which appear in explanations and confirmations in the mathematically oriented physical and biological sciences are “mere distractions” (Laymon 1989, p. 353). When approximation techniques must be used, they are typically justified by appeals to their numerical accuracy. However, recent interest in computational complexity in the sciences has revealed that numerical accuracy is not always the only criterion which should be invoked to justify the use of approximations. Cartwright (1983), Franklin (1988) and others have suggested that causal accuracy should be added as a criterion.

Numerical and causal accuracy are important. However, they form a sufficient set of justificational criteria only when certain—often unstated—conditions obtain. These conditions are actually assumptions which are often not satisfied, especially in the computationally complex situations which characterize discovery and exploratory contexts. In these contexts, we need to concentrate on “delineating a justificatory set which is relevant to [the] given epistemic situation” (Duran 1988, p. 273).

Type
Part VIII. Theory and Hypothesis
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1990 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1990 , 1990 , pp. 485 - 499
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1990

Footnotes

1

Many thanks to Bill Wimsatt and Dan Garber for helping me get clearer on the argument of this paper. I would also like to thank R. Stephen Berry and Jack Halpern for helping me understand the chemistry.

References

Balzer, W., Ulises-Moulines, C. and Sneed, J. (1987), An Architectonic for Science: The Structuralist Program. Boston: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beutler, H. and Rabinowitsch, E. (1930), “Über die Beziehungen zwischen Rotation, Warmetönung und Wirkungsquerschnitt der Reaktion mit chemischen Elementarprozessen”, Zeitschrift für physikalische Chemie B8: 231–254.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. (1966), “Pattern Matching as An Essential in Distal Knowing”, in The Psychology of Egon Brunswick, Hammond, K. R. (ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 81–106.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coolidge, A. S. and James, H. (1934), “The Approximations Involved in Calculations of Atomic Interaction and Activation Energies”, Journal of Chemical Physics 2: 811–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresden, M. (1974), “Reflections on ‘Fundamentality and Complexity’”, in Physical Reality and Mathematical Description, Enz, C. and Mehra, J. (eds.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 133–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duran, J. (1988), “Discussion: Causal Reference and Epistemic Justification”, Philosophy of Science 55: 272–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A. (1949), “Remarks to the Essays Appearing in this Collective Volumes”, in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Schilpp, P. A. (ed.). LaSalle, IL: Open Court, pp. 663–688.Google Scholar
Evans, M. G. and Polanyi, M. (1937), “Inertia and Driving Force of Chemical Reactions”, Transactions of the Faraday Society 34: 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyring, H. (1935), “The Activated Complex in Chemical Reactions”, J. Chem. Physics 3: 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyring, H. and Polanyi, M. (1931), “Über einfache Gasreaktionen”, Z.f. physik. Chemie B12: 279–311.Google Scholar
Fairclough, R. A. and Hinshelwood, C. (1937), “The Functional Relation between the Constants of the Arrhenius Equation”, Journal of the Chemical Society 1937: 538–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, A. (1930), “Über die Thermische Parawasserstoffumwandlung”, Z.f. physik. Chemie B10: 419–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, L. and Wigner, E. (1936), “Calculation of the Rate of Elementary Reactions of Light and Heavy Hydrogen”, Transactions of the Faraday Society 32: 708–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1975), Against Method. Norfolk: Thetford Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, A. (1988), “How Nancy Cartwright Tells the Truth”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39: 527–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, R. (1929), Statistical Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. (1937), Statistical Mechanics, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Geib, K. and Harteck, P. (1931), “Die Einwirkung von atomaren auf molekularen Wasserstoff’, Z.f. physik. Chemie, Bodenstein-Festband: 849-862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. (1983), “Testing Theoretical Hypotheses”, in Testing Scientific Theories, Earman, J. (ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 269–298.Google Scholar
Gould, S. and Lewontin, R. (1978), “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptionist Programme”, Proc. R. Soc. (London) 205: 581–598.Google Scholar
Hedges, L. V. (1987), “How Hard is Hard Science, How Soft is Soft Science?”, American Psychologist 42: 443–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinshelwood, C. (1926), Kinetics of Chemical Change in Gaseous Systems. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hinshelwood, C. (1935), “Considerations Concerning the Mechanism of Chemical Reactions”, Journal of the Chemical Society 1935: 1111–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinshelwood, C. (1951), The Structure of Physical Chemistry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hinshelwood, C. and Winkler, C. A. (1936), “On Bimolecular Reactions in Solution”, J. Chem. Soc. 1936: 371–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschfelder, J. and Wigner, E. (1939), “Some Quantum Mechanical Considerations in the Theory of Reactions Involving an Activation Energy”, J. Chem. Phys. 7: 616–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallman, H. and London, F. (1929), “Über quantenmechanische Energieübertragung zwischen atomaren Systemen”, Z. für physik. Chemie 2B: 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassel, L. (1932), The Kinetics of Homogeneous Gas Reactions. New York: Chemical Catalog Co.Google Scholar
Kline, A. D. and Matheson, C. (1986), “How the Laws of Physics Don’t Even Fib”, in PSA 1986, vol. 1, Fine, A. and Machamer, P. (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 33–41.Google Scholar
Laidler, K.J. (1987), “Kinetics (Chemistry)”, in Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, Vol. 7. New York: Academic Press, pp. 74–97.Google Scholar
Laymon, R. (1985), “Idealizations and the Testing of Theories by Experimentation”, in Observation, Experiment and Hypothesis in Modern Physical Science, Achinstein, P. and Hannaway, O. (eds.). Boston: MIT Press, pp. 147–173.Google Scholar
Laymon, R. (1989), “Cartwright and the Lying Laws of Physics”, Journal of Philosophy 86, 353–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, W. C. McC. (1918), “Studies in Catalysis. Part IX. The Calculation in Absolute Measure of Velocity Constants and Equlibrium constants in Gaseous Systems”, J. Chem. Soc. 113: 471–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meer, N. and Polany, M. (1932), “Vergleich der Natriumdampreaktion mit anderen organish-chemischen Prozessen”, Z.f. physik. Chem. 19B: 164–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moelwyn-Hughes, E. A. (1933), Kinetics of Reactions in Solution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. (1977), “On Judging the Plausibility of Theories”, in Models of Discovery. Boston: D. Reidel, pp. 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1972), “A Formal Approach to the Philosophy of Science”, in Paradigms and Paradoxes, Colodny, R. (ed.). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 303–366.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wartofsky, M. (1979), “Models, Metaphysics and the Vagaries of Empiricism”, in Models: Representation and the Scientific Understanding. Boston: D. Reidel, pp. 24–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. (1976), “Reductive Explanation: A Functional Account”, in PSA 1974, Cohen, R. S. et. al. (eds.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 653–670.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. (1987), “False Models as Means to Truer Theories”, in Neutral Models in Biology, Nitecki, M. and Hoffman, A. (eds.). New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–55.Google Scholar