Fiction and Scientific Representation

Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science

Volumn 262, Issue , 2010, Pages 97-138

  Frigg, Roman ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Ideal Limit; Newtonian Model; Scientific Modeling; Target System; Transitive Relation

Indexed keywords

EID: 85101972228     PISSN: 00680346     EISSN: 22147942     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-3851-7_6     Document Type: Chapter

References (79)

1. Balzer, W., Ulises Moulines, C. and Sneed, J. D. (1987), An Architectonic for Science: The Structuralist Program. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
2. Bogen, J. and Woodward, J. (1988), “Saving the Phenomena”, Philosophical Review 97: 303–352.
3. Boolos, G. S. and Jeffrey, R. C. (1989), Computability and Logic, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Brown, J. (1991), The Laboratory of the Mind: Thought Experiments in the Natural Sciences. London: Routledge.
5. Budd, M. (1992), “Review of ‘Mimesis as Make-Believe’”, Mind 101: 195–198.
6. Callender, C. and Cohen, J. (2006), “There Is No Special Problem About Scientific Representation”, Theoria 55: 7–25.
7. Campbell, N. (1920), Physics: The Elements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Reprinted as Foundations of Science. New York: Dover, 1957).
8. Carnap, R. (1938), “Foundations of Logic and Mathematics”, in O. Neurath, C. Morris and R. Carnap (eds.), International Encyclopaedia of Unified Science, vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 139–213.
9. Cartwright, N. (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Cartwright, N. (1999), The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Contessa, G. (2007), “Scientific Representation, Interpretation, and Surrogative Reasoning”, Philosophy of Science 74, 1: 48–68.
12. Crittenden, C. (1991), Unreality: The Metaphysics of Fictional Objects. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
13. Currie, G. (1990), The Nature of Fiction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Currie, G. (2004), “Imagination and Make-Believe”, in B. Gaut and D. M. Lopes (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, London: Routledge, 335–346.
15. Da Costa, N. and French, S. (1990), “The Model-Theoretic Approach to the Philosophy of Science”, Philosophy of Science 57: 248–265.
16. Davies, D. (2007), “Thought Experiments and Fictional Narratives”, Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7, 19: 29–45.
17. Downes, S. (1992), “The Importance of Models in Theorizing: A Deflationary Semantic View”, Philosophy of Science (Proceedings) 1: 142–153.
18. Duhem, P. (1906), La Théorie Physique, son Objet et sa Structure, 2nd ed. Paris: Hermann, 1914 (English trans. P. P. Wiener: The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1954).
19. Elgin, C. Z. (1996), Considered Judgment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
20. Evans, G. (1982), The Varieties of Reference. Edited by John McDowell. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Feynman, R., Leighton, R. B. and Sands, M. L. (eds.) (1963), The Feynman Lectures in Physics. Redwood City, CA and Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1989.
22. Fine, A. (1993), “Fictionalism”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 18: 1–18.
23. French, S. (1999), “Models and Mathematics in Physics: The Role of Group Theory”, in J. Butterfield and C. Pagonis (eds.), From Physics to Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 187–207.
24. French, S. and Ladyman, J. (1997), “Reinflating the Semantic Approach”, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 13: 103–121.
25. Friend, S. (2007), “Fictional Characters”, Philosophy Compass 2, 2: 141–156.
26. Frigg, R. (2003), Re-presenting Scientific Representation, PhD Thesis. London: University of London.
27. Frigg, R. (2006), “Scientific Representation and the Semantic View of Theories”, Theoria 55: 49–65.
28. Frigg, R. (2010), “Models and Fiction”, Synthese 172(2), 251–268.
29. Giere, R. N. (1988), Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
30. Giere, R. N. (2004), “How Models Are Used to Represent Reality”, Philosophy of Science 71, 4: 742–752.
31. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2006), “The Strategy of Model-Based Science”, Biology and Philosophy 21: 725–740.
32. Goodman, N. (1976), Languages of Art, 2nd ed. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett.
33. Grüne-Yanoff, T. and Schweinzer, P. (2008), “The Roles of Stories in Applying Game Theory”, Journal of Economic Methodology 15, 2: 131–146.
34. Hacking, I. (1983), Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Hartmann, S. (1995), “Models as a Tool for Theory Construction: Some Strategies of Preliminary Physics”, in W. E. Herfel, W. Krajewski, I. Niiniluoto and R. Wojcicki (eds.), Theories and Models in Scientific Processes (Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of Science and the Humanities 44). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 49–67.
36. Hartmann, S. (1999), “Models and Stories in Hadron Physics”, in M. Morgan and M. Morrison (eds.), Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 326–346.
37. Hempel, C. G. (1965), Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Free Press.
38. Hesse, M. (1963), Models and Analogies in Science. London: Sheed and Ward.
39. Hitchcock, C. (ed.) (2004), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Blackwell.
40. Howell, R. (1979), “Fictional Objects: How They Are and How They Aren’t”, Poetics 8: 129–177.
41. Hughes, R. I. G. (1997), “Models and Representation”, Philosophy of Science 64, Supplement: S325–S336.
42. Kivy, P. (2006), The Performance of Reading: An Essay in the Philosophy of Literature. Oxford: Blackwell.
43. Lamarque, P. (1991), “Essay Review of ‘Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts’ by Kendall Walton”, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 49, 2: 161–166.
44. Lamarque, P. and Olsen, S. H. (1994), Truth, Fiction, and Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
45. Laymon, R. (1991), “Thought Experiments by Stevin, Mach and Gouy: Thought Experiments as Ideal Limits and as Semantic Domains”, in T. Horowitz and G. J. Massey (eds.), Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy, Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 167–191.
46. Lewis, D. (1978), “Truth in Fiction”, in D. Lewis (ed.), Philosophical Papers, vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983, 261–280.
47. McAllister, James W. (1997), “Phenomena and Patterns in Data Sets”, Erkenntnis 47: 217–228.
48. McCloskey, D. N. (1990), “Storytelling in Economics”, in C. Nash (ed.), Narrative in Culture: The Uses of Storytelling in the Sciences, Philosophy, and Literature, London: Routledge, 5–22.
49. Morgan, M. (2001), “Models, Stories and the Economic World”, Journal of Economic Methodology 8, 3: 361–384.
50. Morgan, M. (2004), “Imagination and Imaging in Model Building”, Philosophy of Science 71, 4: 753–766.
51. Morgan, M. and Morrison, M. (eds.) (1999), Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52. Muller, F. A. (1998), Structures for Everyone. Amsterdam: A. Gerits & Son.
53. Parsons, T. (1980), Nonexistent Objects. New Haven: Yale University Press.
54. Rohrlich, F. (1989), “The Logic of Reduction: The Case of Gravitation”, Foundations of Physics 19: 1151–1170.
55. Russell, B. (1905), “On Denoting”, in Logic and Knowledge. London: Routledge, 1956, 39–56.
56. Russell, B. (1919), Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. London and New York: Routledge, 1993.
57. Shapiro, S. (2000), Thinking About Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58. Sismondo, S. and Chrisman, N. (2001), “Deflationary Metaphysics and the Nature of Maps”, Philosophy of Science (Proceedings) 68: 38–49.
59. Sklar, L. (2000), Theory and Truth: Philosophical Critique Within Foundational Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60. Smith, L. (2007), Chaos: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
61. Smolin, L. (2007), The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. London: Allen Lane.
62. Sorensen, R. (1992), Thought Experiments. New York: Oxford University Press.
63. Suárez, M. (2003), “Scientific Representation: Against Similarity and Isomorphism”, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17, 3: 225–244.
64. Suárez, M. (2004), “An Inferential Conception of Scientific Representation”, Philosophy of Science (Supplement) 71: 767–779.
65. Suárez, M. and Solé, A. (2006), “On the Analogy between Cognitive Representation and Truth”, Theoria 55: 39–48.
66. Sugden, R. (2000), “Credible Worlds: The Status of Theoretical Models in Economics”, Journal of Economic Methodology 7, 1: 1–31.
67. Suppe, F. (ed.) (1977), The Structure of Scientific Theories. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
68. Suppes, P. (1960), “A Comparison of the Meaning and Uses of Models in Mathematics and the Empirical Sciences”, in P. Suppes (ed.), Studies in the Methodology and Foundations of Science: Selected Papers from 1951 to 1969, Dordrecht: Reidel, 1969, 10–23.
69. Teller, P. (2001), “Twilight of the Perfect Model Model”, Erkenntnis 55: 393–415.
70. Thomson-Jones, M. (2007), “Missing Systems and the Face Value Practice”, Synthese (forthcom-ing).
71. Toon, A. (2010), “Models as Make-Believe”, in R. Frigg and M.C. Hunter (eds.), Beyond Mimesis and Convention: Representation in Art and Science, Berlin: Springer.
72. Vaihinger, H. (1911), The Philosophy of ‘As If’: A System of the Theoretical, Practical, and Religious Fictions of Mankind (English trans. C. K. Ogden). London: Kegan Paul, 1924.
73. van Fraassen, B. C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
74. van Fraassen, B. C. (1989), Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
75. van Fraassen, B. C. (1997), “Structure and Perspective: Philosophical Perplexity and Paradox”, in M. L. Dalla Chiara (ed.), Logic and Scientific Methods, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 511–530.
76. van Fraassen, B. C. (2002), The Empirical Stance. New Haven and London.
77. Walton, K. L. (1990), Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
78. Woodward, J. (1989), “Data and Phenomena”, Synthese 79: 393–472.
79. Young, H. D. and Freedman, R. (2000), University Physics with Modern Physics. 10th ed. San Francisco, CA and Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.