Representing with imaginary models: Formats matter

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 287-295

  Vorms, Marion ^a  

^a Universite Paris 2   (France)

Author keywords

Format; Inferences; Models; Representation; Scientific reasoning

Indexed keywords

EID: 79954572550     PISSN: 00393681     EISSN: 18792510     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.11.036     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Callender C., Cohen J. There is no special problem about scientific representation. Theoria 2006, 55:67-85.
2. Cartwright N. How the laws of physics lie 1983, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
3. Frigg, R. (2002). Models and representation: Why structures are not enough. In Measurement in physics and economics project discussion paper series. DP MEAS 25/02, London School of Economics.
4. Frigg R. Scientific representation and the semantic view of theories. Theoria 2006, 55:49-65.
5. Frigg R. Models and fiction. Synthese 2010, 172(2):251-268.
6. Giere R.N. Explaining science. A cognitive approach 1988, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
7. Giere R.N. Science without laws 1999, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
8. Giere R.N. Scientific perspectivism 2006, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
9. Godfrey-Smith P. The strategy of model-based science. Biology and Philosophy 2006, 21:725-740.
10. Goodman N. Languages of art. An approach to a theory of symbols 1976, Hackett Publishing Company, Indiana. 2nd ed.
11. Greenberg, M., & Harman, G. (2005). Conceptual role semantics. UCLA school of law: UCLA public law series (September 1, 2005, pp. 5-16).
12. Humphreys P.W. Extending ourselves. Computational science, empiricism, and scientific method 2004, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
13. Johnson-Laird P.N. Mental models. Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cognitive science series 1983, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
14. Kuhn T.S. Second thoughts on paradigms. The structure of scientific theories 1969, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp. 459-482. 2nd ed. F. Suppe (Ed.).
15. Kuhn T.S. The structure of scientific revolutions 1970, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 2nd ed.
16. Kuhn, T. S. (1970b). Postcript. In Kuhn (1970a).
17. Kuhn T.S. Reflections on my critics. Criticism and the growth of knowledge 1970, 231-278. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. I. Lakatos, A. Musgrave (Eds.).
18. Kulvicki J. Knowing with images: Medium and message. Philosophy of Science 2010, 77(2):295-313.
19. Simon H.A., Larkin J.H. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 1987, 11:65-99.
20. Suárez M. Theories, models, and representation. Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery 1999, 75-83. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, London. L. Magnani, N. Nersessian, P. Thagard (Eds.).
21. Suárez M. Scientific representation: Against similarity and isomorphism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2003, 17(3):225-244.
22. Suppe F. The semantic view of theories and scientific realism 1989, University of Illinois Press, Champaign, IL.
23. Suppes P. A comparison of the meaning and use of models in mathematics and the empirical sciences. Synthese 1960, 12:281-301.
24. Suppes P. What is a scientific theory?. Philosophy of science today 1967, 55-67. Basic Books, New York. S. Morgenbesser (Ed.).
25. Thomson-Jones, M. (2005). Idealization and abstraction: A framework. In M. Thomson-Jones, & N. Cartwright (Eds.), Idealization XII: Correcting the model, idealization and abstraction in the sciences (pp. 173-217).
26. van Fraassen B.C. The scientific image 1980, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
27. Vorms M. Formats of representation in scientific theorizing. Models, simulations, and representations 2001, Routledge, New York. P.W. Humphreys, C. Imbert (Eds.).
28. Walton K. Mimesis as make-believe: On the foundations of the representational arts 1990, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.