Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-2l2gl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-04T15:18:50.432Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In the Theoretician's Laboratory: Thought Experimenting as Mental Modeling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Nancy J. Nersessian
Nancy J. Nersessian*
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

After a lang period of neglect there has been a recent wave of interest in thought experiments in science, in mathematics, and in philosophy (See, e.g., Horowitz & Massey, 1991). I will restrict my analysis to thought experiments as they function in science, although I believe the account has implications for thought experiments, generally. The two most influential views on the topic in philosophy and history of science in this century represent the extremes of empiricism and rationalism. Pierre Duhem dismissed all thought experiments as bogus precisely because they are “not only not realized but incapable of being realized” (Duhem 1914, p.202).

Type
Part IX. Thought Experiments: The Theoretician's Laboratory
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1992 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1992 , 1993 , pp. 291 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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.)

Footnotes

1

I acknowledge and appreciate the support of NSF Scholars Awards DIR 8821422 and DIR 9111779 in conducting the research discussed here.

References

Anapolitanos, D. A. (1991), “Thought Experiments and Conceivability Conditions.” in Horowitz & Massey, pp. 87-98.Google Scholar
Brown, J. R. (1991), The Laboratory of the Mind. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Craik, K. (1943), The Nature of Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dear, P. (1985), “Totis in verba: Rhetoric in the Early Royal Society.” Isis 76: 145-161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Kleer, J. and Brown, J. S. (1983), “Assumptions and Ambiguities in Mechanistic Mental Models.” in Gentner & Stevens, pp. 155-190.Google Scholar
Duhem, P. (1914), The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. (Trans.) P. Wiener. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954.Google Scholar
Farah, M. J. (1988), “Is Visual Imagery Really Visual? Overlooked Evidence from Neuropsychology.” Psychological Review 95: 307-317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, N. and Tversky, B. (1990), “Searching Imagined Environments.“Journal of Experimental Psychology 119: 63-76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentener, D. and Gentner, D. R. (1983), “Flowing Waters or Teaming Crowds: Mental Models of Electricity.” in Gentner & Stevens, pp. 99-130.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. and Stevens, A. L. (1983), Mental Models. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Giere, R. (1992), “Concepts, Categories, and Scientific Theories.“unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Gilhooly, K. J. (1986), “Mental Modelling: A Framework for the Study of Thinking.” in Thinking: Progress in Research and Teaching, (eds.) J Bishop, J. Lochhead, and D. Perkins.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 19-32.Google Scholar
Gooding, D. (1990), Experiment and the Making of Meaning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooding, D. (1992), ‘'The Procedural Tum; or Why do Thought Experiments Work?” in Cognitive Models of Science, (ed.) R. Giere. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 15. Minneapolis: U. of Minnesota Press, pp. 45-76.Google Scholar
Harman, G. (1986), Change in View. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, F. L. (1990), “Argument and Narrative in Scientific Writing.” in The Paper laboratory, (ed.) P. Dear. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 164-181.Google Scholar
Horowitz, T. and Massey, G. J. (1991), Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy. Savage, MD.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Janis, A. (1991), “Can Thought Experiments Fail?” in Horowitz & Massey, pp. 113-118.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983), Mental Models. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1989), “Mental Models.” in Foundations of Cognitive Science, (ed.) M. Posner. Cambridge: MIT Press., pp. 469-500.Google Scholar
Koyré, A. (1939), Galileo Studies. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Koyré, A. (1968), Metaphysics and Measurement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S.(1964), “A Function for Thought Experiments.” in The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977, pp. 240-265.Google Scholar
Mach, E. (1898), “On Mental Adaptation.” in Popular Scientific Lectures, fifth edition, (trans.) T. McCormack. LaSalle, II.: Open Court, 1943, pp. 214-235.Google Scholar
Mach, E. (1905), “On Thought Experiments.” in Knowledge and Error. Dordrecht : D. Reidel, 1975, pp. 134-147.Google Scholar
Mani, K. and Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1982), “The Mental Representation of Spatial Descriptions.” M emory and Cognition 10: 181-187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, T. P. and Sternberg, R. J. (1983), “Mental Models of Word Meaning.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22:449-474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrow, D. G., Bower, G. H., and Greenspan, S. L. (1989), “Updating Situation Models during Narrative Comprehension.” Journal of Memory and Language 28: 292-312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nersessian, N. J. (1988), “Reasoning from imagery and analogy in scientific concept formation.” in PSA 1988, (eds.) A. Fine & J. Leplin. East Lansing, Ml., Philosophy of Science Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nersessian, N. J. (1991a), “Why do thought experiments work?” Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society 13. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 430-38.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. J. (1991b), “The Cognitive Sciences and the History of Science,” in Conference on Critical Problems and Research Frontiers in the History of Science and Technology.Madison, WI: HSS and SHOT, pp. 92-116.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. J. (1992), “How Do Scientists Think? Capturing the Dynamics of Conceptual Change in Science.” in Cognitive Models of Science, (ed.) R. Giere. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 15. Minneapolis: U. of Minnesota Press, pp. 3-44.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. J. in press. “Abstraction via Generic Modeling in Concept Formation in Science.” in Idealization in Science, (eds.) N. Cartwright & M.R. Jones. Amsterdam: Editions Rodophi.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. J. in process. Creativity and Conceptual Change: A Cognitive Constructivist View. (to be published by MIT/Bradford Books).Google Scholar
Norton, I. (1991), “Thought Experiments in Einstein's Work.“in Horowitz and Massey, pp. 129-148.Google Scholar
Perrig, W. and Kintsch, W. (1985), “Propositional and Situational Representations of Text.” Journal of memory and Language 24:503-518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, S. (1984), “Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle's Literary Technology.” Social Studies of Science 14: 481-520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shephard, R. (1988), “The Imagination of the Scientist.” in Imagination and the Scientist, (eds.) K. Egan and D. Nadaner. NY: Teachers College Press, pp. 153-185.Google Scholar
Sorenson, R. (1992), Thought Experiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. (1990), “Taming the Dimensions-Visualization in Science.” in PSA 1990, vol. 2, (eds.) A. Fine, M. Forbes, and L. Wessels. East Lansing, MI.: PSA, pp. 111-135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar