Informational versus functional theories of scientific representation

Synthese

Volumn 172, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 197-213

  Chakravartty, Anjan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Isomorphism; Model; Scientific representation; Similarity; Target system; Theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 79954579979     PISSN: 00397857     EISSN: 15730964     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-009-9502-3     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Bartels, A. (2006). Defending the structural concept of representation. Theoria, 55, 7-19.
2. Callender, C., & Cohen, J. (2006). There is no special problem about scientific representation. Theoria, 55, 67-85.
3. Chakravartty, A. (2004). Structuralism as a form of scientific realism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 18, 151-171.
4. Chakravartty, A. (2007). A metaphysics for scientific realism: Knowing the unobservable. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Contessa, G. (2007). Scientific representation, interpretation, and surrogative reasoning. Philosophy of Science, 74, 48-68.
6. Currie, G. (1995). Image and mind: Film, philosophy and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. da Costa, N. C. A., & French, S. (2003). Science and partial truth: A unitary understanding of models and scientific reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Demopoulos, W., & Friedman, M. (1985). Critical notice: Bertrand Russell's The Analysis of Matter: Its historical context and contemporary interest. Philosophy of Science, 52, 621-639.
9. Elgin, C. Z. (2004). True enough. Philosophical Issues, 14, 113-131.
10. Elgin, C. Z. (2006). Exemplification, idealization, and understanding. Presented at Beyond Mimesis and Nominalism: Representation inArt and Science. Organized by theCourtauld Institute andLondon School of Economics.
11. French, S. (2003). A model-theoretic account of representation (or, I don't know much about art.but I know it involves isomorphism). Philosophy of Science, 70, 1472-1483.
12. Frigg, R. (2006). Scientific representation and the semantic view of theories. Theoria, 50, 49-65.
13. Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14. Giere, R. N. (1999). Using models to represent reality. In L.Magnani, N. J. Nersessian,&P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 41-57). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
15. Giere, R. N. (2004). How models are used to represent reality. Philosophy of Science, 71, 742-752.
16. Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols (2nd ed.). Indianapolis:Hackett.
17. Hughes, R. I. G. (1997). Models and representation. Philosophy of Science, 64, S325-S336.
18. Ketland, J. (2004). Empirical adequacy and ramsification. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55, 287-300.
19. Melia, J., & Saatsi, J. (2006). Ramseyfication and theoretical content. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57, 561-585.
20. Mundy, B. (1986). On the general theory of meaningful representation. Synthese, 67, 391-437.
21. Scruton, R. (1983). The aesthetic understanding: Essays in the philosophy of art and culture. London: Methuen.
22. Suárez, M. (2003). Scientific representation: Against similarity and isomorphism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17, 225-244.
23. Suárez, M. (2004). An inferential conception of scientific representation. Philosophy of Science, 71, 767-779.
24. Suárez, M. & Solé, A. (2006). On the analogy between cognitive representation and truth. Theoria, 55, 39-48.
25. Swoyer, C. (1991). Structural representation and surrogative reasoning. Synthese, 87, 449-508.
26. van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. van Fraassen, B. C. (1989). Laws and symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon.
28. Walton, K. L. (1984). Transparent pictures: On the nature of photographic realism. Critical Inquiry, 11, 246-277.
29. Worrall, J., & Zahar, E. G. (2001). Ramseyfication and structural realism. In E. G. Zahar (Ed.), Poincaré's philosophy: From conventionalism to phenomenology (Appendix IV, pp. 236-251). Chicago: Open Court.