Idealizaciónconcepción estructuralista y generalización modelo-teórica

  1. de Donato Rodríguez, Xavier 1
  2. Polanski, Marek
  1. 1 Departamento de Lóxica e Filosofía Moral, Área de Lóxica e Filosofía da Ciencia, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
Journal:
Metatheoria

ISSN: 1853-2330,  1853-2322

Year of publication: 2015

Issue Title: Thematic Volume - Metatheoretical Structuralism: Some Recent Developments and Applications - Part I

Volume: 5

Issue: 2

Pages: 45-55

Type: Article

DOI: 10.48160/18532330ME5.242 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Metatheoria

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

The present article is a survey of some ideas on idealization understood as an intertheoretical relation. First, Leszek Nowak’s views on idealization, approximation and confirmation, that have inspiredthe so-called Poznań School, are discussed and illustrated with the example of Galileo’s Law of Free Fall. After some criticism and discussion about different concepts of idealization in terms of counterfactual deformation, we present a structuralist reconstruction of the notion of idealization and then we turn to a model-theoretic generalization. We illustrate this by using the same historical example. Finally, we offer a characterization of intertheoretical idealization in terms of Tarski’s notion of relative interpretability.

Bibliographic References

  • Balzer, W., Pearce, D. y H.-J. Schmidt (eds.) (1984), Reduction in Science. Structure, Examples, Philosophical Problems, Dordrecht: Reidel.
  • Balzer, W. y G. Zoubek (1994), “Structuralist Aspects of Idealization”, en Kuokkanen (1994), pp. 57-79.
  • Barr, E.W. (1971), “A Syntactic and Semantic Analysis of Idealization in Science”, Philosophy of Science38: 258-272.
  • Barr, E.W. (1974), “A Pragmatic Analysis of Idealization in Physics”, Philosophy of Science41: 48-64.
  • Brzeziński, J., Coniglione, F., Kuipers, T. y L. Nowak (eds.)(1990a), Idealization I: General Problems (PoznańStudies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 16), Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
  • Brzeziński, J., Coniglione, F., Kuipers, T.y L. Nowak (eds.)(1990b), Idealization II: Forms and Applications(PoznańStudies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 17), Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
  • Brzeziński, J. y L. Nowak (eds.)(1992), Idealization III: Approximation and Truth(PoznańStudies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 25), Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
  • Cartwright, N. (1989), Nature’s Capacities and their Measurement, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Cohen, I.B. (1985), The Birth of a New Physics, New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
  • De Donato Rodríguez, X. (2005), Idealization and the Growth of Physics, Tesis doctoral, Munich: University of Munich.
  • De Donato Rodríguez, X. (2011),“Idealization within a Structuralist Perspective”, Metatheoria1(2):65-90.
  • Eberle, R.A. (1971), “Replacing one Theory by Another under Preservation of a Given Feature”, Philosophy of Science38: 486-501.
  • Haase, M. (1995), Galileische Idealisierung. Ein pragmatisches Konzept, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Hamminga, B. (1989), “Sneed versus Nowak: An Illustration in Economics”, Erkenntnis30: 247-265.
  • Ibarra, A. y T. Mormann (1994), “Counterfactual Deformation and Idealization in a Structuralist Framework”, en Kuokkanen(1994), pp. 81-94.
  • Krajewski, W. (1977), Correspondence Principle and Growth of Science, Dordrecht: Reidel.
  • Kuokkanen, M. (ed.)(1994), Idealization VII: Structuralism, Idealization and Approximation(PoznańStudies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 42), Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
  • Kuokkanen, M. y T. Tuomivaara (1992), “On the Structure of Idealizations. Explorations in the PoznańSchool Methodology of Science”, en Brzeziński &Nowak (1992), pp. 67-102.
  • Kupracz, A. (1992), “Testing and Correspondence”, en Brzeziński y Nowak (1992), pp. 127-144.
  • Laymon, R. (1982), “Scientific Realism and the Hierarchical Counterfactual Path from Data to Theory”, en Asquith, P. y T. Nickles (eds.), Proceedings of the 1982 Biennal Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Michigan: East Lansing, vol.1, pp. 107-121.
  • Laymon, R. (1987),“Using Scott Domains to Explicate the Notions of Approximate and Idealized Data”, Philosophy of Science54:194-221.
  • Niebergall, K.-G. (2000), “On the Logic of Reducibility: Axioms and Examples”, Erkenntnis53: 27-61.
  • Niiniluoto, I. (1990), “Theories, Approximations, and Idealizations”, en Brzeziński et al. (1990a), pp. 9-57.
  • Niiniluoto, I.(1999),Critical Scientific Realism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Nowak, L. (1972): “Laws of Science, Theories, Measurement (Comments on Ernest Nagel’s The Structure of Science)”, Philosophy of Science39:533-547.
  • Nowak, L. (1990), “Abstracts Are Not Our Constructs. The Mental Constructs Are Abstracts”, en Brzeziński et al. (1990b), pp. 193-206.
  • Nowak, L. (1980), The Structure of Idealization, Dordrecht: Reidel.
  • Nowak, L. (1992), “The Idealizational Approach to Science: A Survey”, en Brzeziński et al. (1992), pp. 9-63.
  • Nowak, L. y I. Nowakowa (eds.)(2000), Idealization X: The Richness of Idealization(PoznańStudies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 69), Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
  • Nowakowa, I. (1994), Idealization V: The Dynamics of idealization (PoznańStudies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 34), Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
  • Paprzycka, K. (1992), “Why do Idealizational StatementsApply to Reality?”, en Brzeziński &Nowak (1992), pp. 145-156.
  • Patryas, W. (1977), The Sense of Empirical Testing(PoznańStudies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 3), Amsterdam: Grüner, pp. 180-198.
  • Pearce, D. y V. Rantala (1983), “Correspondence as an Intertheory Relation”, Studia Logica42: 363-371.
  • Pearce, D. y V. Rantala (1984a), “A Logical Study of the Correspondence Relation”, Journal of Philosophical Logic13: 47-84.
  • Pearce, D. y V. Rantala (1984b), “Limiting Case Correspondence between Physical Theories”, en Balzer, Pearce & Schmidt (1984), pp. 153-185.
  • Polanski, M. (2002), Zur logischen Analyse von Theorienreduktion und Theorienäquivalenz, Munich: Centrum für Informations-und Sprachverarbeitung.
  • Rott, H. (1990), “Approximation versus Idealization: the Kepler-Newton Case”, en Brzeziński et al. (1990b), pp. 101-124.
  • Rott, H. (1994), Reduktion und Revision. Aspekte des nichtmonotonen Theorienwandels,Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Data source: Dialnet