"The role of models in the application of scientific theories: epistemological implications".

Mauricio Suarez

Logic and Philosophy of Science, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Filosofía "B",
Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM), 28040 Madrid, Spain

Email: msuarez@filos.ucm.es
Phone: + 34 91 394 5734 (my office) / 394 6025 (dept)
Fax: + 34 91 394 6025
http://fs-morente.filos.ucm.es/profesores/suarez/inicio.htm

7.1  Introduction.

The theme of this book is reflected in the slogan 'scientific models mediate between theory and the real world'. It is a theme with, at least two, aspects. One aspect is methodological. Model building is a pervasive feature of the methodology (or methodologies) employed by scientists to arrive at theoretical representations of real systems, and to manipulate reality. Many of the contributions to this book engage with the methodological issues, and they all agree that the activity of model building is central  to scientific practice. The methodological implications of the slogan are clear: much of scientific practice, perhaps the totality of it, would be impossible without models.

Another aspect of the theme relates to issues such as the nature of explanation, the form of scientific confirmation, and the debate over scientific realism. These are traditional philosophical issues, and in this paper I concentrate on one of them: models provide theories with genuine empirical content, by 'filling in' the abstract descriminations afforded by theory, hence making it possible to apply theories to natural phenomena. How do models perform this role? What are the consequences for the realism issue? The focus of this paper is on the implications of models for the epistemology of scientific knowledge.

7.2  Models as Mediators.

       7.2.1  Features of mediating models.

       7.2.2  Mediating models in the philosophy of science.

7.3  Theory Application: The Role of Models.

       7.3.1  Forms of idealisation.

       7.3.2  Idealisation and scientific realism.

7.4  Problems with Idealisation.

       7.4.1  Idealisation and mediating models.

7.5  How Models Mediate: The Case of Superconductivity.

       7.5.1  The hallmarks of superconductivity.

       7.5.2  Applying electromagnetism.

       7.5.3  Enter the model.

7.6  Application in Practice: Problems for Realism.

       7.6.1  The epistemology of theory-application.

       7.6.2  Conclusions.

7.7  Final Remarks.
 

1. Morrison, M, "Unifying Scientific Theories", (2000), Cambridge University Press.
http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk

2. Suárez M, and Bird A,  (eds), "Dispositions, Propensities and Causes in Science", special issue of the Spanish journal Theoria, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 271-300, September 2004.
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002253/

"Causal Processes and Propensities in Quantum Mechanics".

Mauricio Suárez,

Logic and Philosophy of Science, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Filosofía "B",
Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM), 28040 Madrid, Spain

Abstract:

In an influential article published in 1982, Bas Van Fraassen developed an argument against causal realism on the basis of an analysis of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations of quantum mechanics. Several philosophers of science and experts in causal inference – including some causal realists like Wesley Salmon – have accepted Van Fraassen’s argument, interpreting it as a proof that the quantum correlations cannot be given any causal model. In this paper I argue that Van Fraassen’s article can also be interpreted as a good guide to the different causal models available for the EPR correlations, and their relative virtues. These models in turn give us insight into some of the unusual features that quantum propensities might have.

Keywords: Philosophy of Science, Quantum Mechanics, Causality, Propensities, Realism.
ID Code: 2253
Deposited By: Suárez, Mauricio
Deposited On: 07 April 2005

Acknowledgements:

This paper is a improved version of part of chapter 4 of my PhD thesis (Suárez, 1997),
and takes further some themes that I also explore in a couple of articles published in
Spanish (Suárez, 1994 and forthcoming). I am grateful for comments on different
parts of this paper to audiences in Cambridge, St. Andrews, Oxford, Firenze, London
(LSE), Barcelona and Sydney. Research towards the last stages in the writing of this
paper has been supported by Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology Project
BFF2002-01552: “Causality, Determinism and Probability in Quantum Mechanics
and Relativity Theory”.

References:

Berkovitz, J. (2000), “The Nature of Causation in Quantum Phenomena”, in M.
Suárez (ed.) (2000b), Causality in Physics, pp. 87-122.

Bird, A. (2004), “Antidotes all the Way Down”, this volume.

Bohm, D. (1951), Quantum Theory, Prentice Hall.

Bohm, D. (1952), “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of
Hidden Variables, I and II”, Physical Review, 85, pp. 166-193. Reprinted in Wheeler
and Zurek (1985), pp. 369-396.

Butterfield, J. (1989), “A Space-Time Approach to the Bell Inequality”, in Cushing
and McMullin, eds., (1989), pp. 114-144.

Cartwright, N. (1988), “How to Tell a Common Cause: Generalizations of the
Conjunctive Fork Criterion”, in Fetzer, J. ed. (1988), pp. 181-188.

Cartwright, N. (1989), Nature’s Capacities and their Measurement, Oxford
University Press.

Chang, H. and N. Cartwright (1993), “Causality and Realism in the EPR
Experiment”, Erkenntnis, 38, pp. 169-189.

Costa de Beauregard, O., (1977), “Time Symmetry and the Einstein Paradox”, Il
Nuovo Cimento, 42B, pp. 41-64.

Cushing, J., (1995), Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the
Copenhagen Hegemony, University of Chicago Press.

Cushing and McMullin (eds.), (1989), Philosophical Consequences of Quantum
Theory, Notre Dame Press.

Dickson, M. and R. Clifton (1998), “Lorentz-Invariance in Modal Interpretations”, in
Dieks, D. and P. Vermaas (1998).

Dieks, D. and P. Vermaas (1998), The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,
Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Dowe, P. (2000), Physical Causation, Cambridge University Press.

Dummett, M. (1954), “Can an Effect Precede Its Cause?”, Proceedings of the
Aristotelian Society, Supp. Volume, 38, pp. 27-44.

Einstein, A., B. Podolsky and N. Rosen (1935), “Can Quantum Mechanical
Description of the World Be Considered Complete?”, Physical Review, 47, pp. 777-780.
Reimpreso en Wheeler and Zurek (1985), pp. 138-141.

Fine, A. (1989), “Do Correlations Need to Be Explained”, in Cushing and McMullin
(eds.), pp. 175-194.

Fetzer, J. (ed.), (1988), Probability and Causality, Reidel.

Hausman, D. and J. Woodward (1999), “Independence, Invariance and the Causal
Markov Condition”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 50, 9, pp. 521-583.

Hofer-Szabo, G, M. Redei and L. Szabo (1999), “On Reichenbach’s Common Cause
Principle and Reichenbach’s notion of Common Cause”, British Journal for the
Philosophy of Science, 50, 3, pp. 377-399.

Horwich, P. (1987), Asymmetries in Time, MIT Press.

Lewis, D. (1986), On the Plurality of Worlds, Cambridge University Press.

Martin, C. (1994), “Dispositions and Conditionals”, Philosophical Quarterly, 44, pp.
1-8.

Maudlin, T. (1995), Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, Oxford Blackwells.

Mellor, H. (1974), The Matter of Chance, Cambridge University Press.

Mumford, S. (1998), Dispositions, Oxford University Press.

Price, H. (1996), Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point, Oxford University Press.

Psillos, S. (2002), Caustion and Explanation, Acumen.

Reichenbach, H., (1956), The Direction of Time, University of California Press.

Salmon, W. (1984), Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World,
Princeton University Press.

Salmon, W. (1994), “Causality without Counterfactuals”, Philosophy of Science, 61,
pp. 297-312.

Schrödinger, E., (1933), “The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics: A Translation
of Schrödinger’s ‘Cat Paradox’ Paper”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Soceity, 124, pp. 323-38, 1980. Reprinted in Wheeler and Zurek (1985).

Suárez, M. (1994), “La Cuestión de la Causalidad en el Experimento de Einstein,
Podolsky y Rosen: Una Visión Crítica”, Actas del II Congreso de la Sociedad de
Lógica, Metodología y Filosofía de la Ciencia en España, UNED.

Suárez, M. (1997), Models of the World, Data-Models and the Practice of Science:
The Semantics of Quantum Theory, PhD dissertation, London School of Economics.

Suárez, M. (2000a), “The Many Faces of Non-Locality: Dickson on the Quantum
Correlations”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 51, 4, pp. 882-892.

Suárez, M. (ed.) (2000b), Causality in Physics, special monographic section of the
journal Theoria, vol. 15, 37, pp. 5-128.

Suárez(2000c), “Presentation”, in M.Suárez (ed.) (2000b), Causality in Physics.

Suárez, M. (2004), “Quantum Selections, Propensities and the Problem of
Measurement”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55, 2, pp. 219-55.

Van Fraassen, B. (1982), “The Charybdis of Realism: Epistemological Implications of
Bell’s Inequality”, Synthese, 53, pp. 25-38. Reimpreso con correcciones en Cushing
and McMullin, eds. (1989).

Wheeler, J. and W. Zurek (1985), Quantum Theory and Measurement, Princeton
University Press.

Additional Topics:

1.  Medical Systems Biology in Health and Disease

Links to RNA and Biological Causality:

Links to Euchromatin Activator RNA Reviews:
Links to Euchromatin Activator RNA Research:
Links to Ultrastructural Probes of DNase I-Sensitive Sites:
Links to RNA as a Therapeutic Agent:
Links to Hodgkin Lymphoma Immuno-Pathology:
Links to Activated T-Lymphocyte Immunotherapy:
Links to Medical Systems Biology:
Links to Selective Gene Transcription:
Links to RNA-Induced Epigenetics:
Links to RNA-Induced Embryogenesis:
Links to RNA and Biological Causality:
Links to Reprogramming and Neoplasia:

A Brief History of Activator RNA:

"Ultrastructural Probes of Active DNA Sites, and the RNA Activators of DNA". (PowerPoint Presentation).