Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T07:46:21.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Models, Analogies, and Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Peter Achinstein
Peter Achinstein*
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent accounts of scientific method suggest that a model, or analogy, for an axiomatized theory is another theory, or postulate set, with an identical calculus. The present paper examines five central theses underlying this position. In the light of examples from physical science it seems necessary to distinguish between models and analogies and to recognize the need for important revisions in the position under study, especially in claims involving an emphasis on logical structure and similarity in form between theory and analogy. While formal considerations are often relevant in the employment of an analogy they are neither as extensive as proponents of this viewpoint suggest, nor are they in most cases sufficient for allowing analogies to fulfill the roles imputed to them. Of major importance, and what these authors generally fail to consider, are physical similarities between analogue and theoretical object. Such similarities, which are characteristic in varying degrees of most analogies actually employed, play an important role in affording a better understanding of concepts in the theory and also in the development of the theoretical assumptions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , October 1964 , pp. 328 - 350
Copyright
Copyright © 1964 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Achinstein, Peter. “Theoretical Terms and Partial Interpretation,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 14, (1963) 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Adams, Ernest W. “The Foundations of Rigid Body Mechanics and the Derivation of its Laws from those of Particle Mechanics,” in Henkin, Suppes, and Tarski (eds.), The Axiomatic Method. Amsterdam, 1959.Google Scholar
[3] Bohr, Niels. “On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules,” Philosophical Magazine (1913).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Black, Max. Models and Metaphors. Ithaca, 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Braithwaite, R. B. “Models in the Empirical Sciences,” in Nagel, Suppes, and Tarski, (eds.), Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. Stanford, 1962.Google Scholar
[6] Braithwaite, R. B. Scientific Explanation. Cambridge, 1955.Google Scholar
[7] Brodbeck, May. “Models, Meaning, and Theories,” in L. Gross (ed.), Symposium on Sociological Theory. Evanston, 1959.Google Scholar
[8] Campbell, Norman. Physics : The Elements. Cambridge, 1920.Google Scholar
[9] Carnap, Rudolf. Foundations of Logic and Mathematics. Chicago, 1939.Google Scholar
[10] Carnap, Rudolf. Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, 1942.Google Scholar
[11] Carnap, Rudolf. “The Methodological Character of Theoretical Concepts,” in Feigl, Maxwell, and Scriven (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. II.Google Scholar
[12] Duhem, P. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. New York, 1962.Google Scholar
[13] Evans, Robley D. The Atomic Nucleus. New York, 1955.Google Scholar
[14] Flowers, B. H. “The Nuclear Shell Model,” in O. R. Frisch (ed.) Progress in Nuclear Physics. New York, 1952.Google Scholar
[15] Fowler, R. H. Statistical Mechanics. Cambridge, 1929.Google Scholar
[16] Glass, Bentley. “The Establishment of Modern Genetical Theory as an Example of the Interaction of Different Models, Techniques, and Inferences,” in Oxford Symposium on the History of Science, 1961.Google Scholar
[17] Hesse, Mary. “Models in Physics,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 4 (1953), 198–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18] Hutten, Ernest H. The Language of Modern Physics. London, 1956.Google Scholar
[19] Huygens, Christiaan. Treatise on Light. Chicago, 1945.Google Scholar
[20] Inglis, D. R. “The Energy Levels and the Structure of Light Nuclei,” Reviews of Modern Physics 25 (1953), 390–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21] Kelvin, Lord. Baltimore Lectures on Molecular Dynamics and the Wave Theory of Light. London, 1904.Google Scholar
[22] Kelvin, Lord. Papers on Electrostatics and Magnetism. London, 1884.Google Scholar
[23] Kittel, Charles. Elementary Solid State Physics. New York, 1962.Google Scholar
[24] Maxwell, Clerk. Scientific Papers. Cambridge, 1890.Google Scholar
[25] Lise, Meitner, and Frisch, O. R. “Disintegration of Uranium by Neutrons: A New Type of Nuclear Reaction,” Nature 143 (1939), 239.Google Scholar
[26] Nagel, Ernest. The Structure of Science. New York, 1961.Google Scholar
[27] Newell, and Montroll, . “On the Theory of the Ising Model of Ferromagnetism,” Reviews of Modern Physics 25 (1953), 353–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[28] Pauling, Linus. The Nature of the Chemical Bond, 3d ed. Ithaca, 1960.Google Scholar
[29] Rusk, Rogers. Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics. New York, 1958.Google Scholar
[30] Semat, Henry. Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics. New York, 1962.Google Scholar
[31] Suppes, Patrick. “A Comparison of the Meaning and Uses of Models in Mathematics and the Empirical Sciences,” Synthese XII (1960), 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[32] Suppes, Patrick. Introduction to Logic. Princeton, 1957.Google Scholar
[33] Wilkinson, D. H. “Towards New Concepts: Elementary Particles,” in Turning Points in Physics. Amsterdam, 1959.Google Scholar
[34] Yukawa, Hideki. “On the Interaction of Elementary Particles,” in R. Beyer (ed.), Foundations of Nuclear Physics. New York, 1949.Google Scholar