The Problem of Representation in Science: Unexplored Areas
Abstract
The problem of representation in science (which is different from the issue of mental representations in the philosophy of mind) is vastly examined in the contemporary philosophy of science but the investigations include only empirical sciences. Moreover, the dominating results of this research are defectively limited to one type of identification of the relation of representation, namely that of similarity, especially of isomorphism. In this paper, I demonstrate that the issue of representation in science has three shortcomings and flaws which need to be eradicated by revealing new research areas and, as a result, by initiating new type of research. More concretely, the issue of representation (1) is limited to the dubious identifying of representation with similarity, (2) does not include the representation in technical and IT sciences, (3) does not distinguish between descriptive-explanatory (theoretical) sciences and applied (prescriptive) sciences. Differences in representing, including types of represented and representing objects, demonstrate the most profound difference in the natures of these sciences. Therefore, delving deeper into the issues of representing opens some whole new areas for inquiry which can lead to a richer and broader conception of sciences than those attained till now. It is astonishing that the problem of representation, so crucial for images of sciences, is examined so narrowly and selectively in the today philosophy.
References
Bailer-Jones, Daniela. 2009. Scientific Models in Philosophy of Science. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Barberousse, Anouk, i Pascal Ludwig. 2009. „Models as Fictions”. W: Fictions in Science. Philosophical Essays on Modeling and Idealization, red. Mauricio Suárez, 56–73. New York: Routledge.
Boesch, Brandon. 2018. Scientific Representation and Human Action. University of South Carolina. University Libraries. Scholar Commons. Dostęp 06.10.2019. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5589&context=etd.
Bondecka-Krzykowska, Izabella. 2012. „Uwagi na temat ontologii wirtualnej rzeczywistości”. Filozofia Nauki 4: 139–153.
Callender, Craig, i Jonathan Cohen. 2005. „There Is No Special Problem about Scientific Representation”. Theoria 55: 67–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.554.
Cartwright, Nancy, Towfic Shomar, i Mauricio Suárez. 1995. „The Tool Box of Science: Tools for the Building of Models with a Superconductivity Example”. W: Theories and Models in Scientific Processes, red. William E. Herfel, Władysław Krajewski, Ilkka Niiniluoto i Ryszard Wójcicki, 137–149. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi.
Cartwright, Nancy. 1983. How the Law of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cartwright, Nancy. 1999. „Models and the Limits of Theory: Quantum Hamiltonians and the BCS Model of Superconductivity”. W: Models as Mediators, red. Mary S. Morgan i Margaret Morrison, 241–281. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cartwright, Nancy. 1999. The Dappled World. A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
Contessa, Gabriele. 2007. Representing Reality: The Ontology of Scientific Models and Their Representational Function. London: University of London.
Coopmans, Catelijne, Janet Vertesi, Michael Lynch, i Steve Woolgar. 2014. Representation in scientific practice revisited. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Czarnocka, Małgorzata. 2009. Droga do koncepcji prawdy symbolicznej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo IFiS PAN.
Czarnocka, Małgorzata. 2019. „O potrzebie metateoretycznej zmiany w filozofii nauki na przykładzie problemu modeli i reprezentacji”. W: Między filozofią a chemią. Księga Jubileuszowa dla Profesora Pawła Zeidlera, red. Jarosław Boruszewski, Radosław Kazibut, Sławomir Leciejewski, Tomasz Rzepiński i Zbigniew Tworak, 65–82. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
Da Costa, Newton, i Steven French. 2003. Science and Partial Truth: A Unitary Approach to Models and Scientific Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Denning, Peter J. 2000. „Computer Science: The Discipline” W: Encyclopedia of Computer Science, red. Anthony Ralston i David Hemmendinger. Dostęp 06.10.2019. http://denning institute.com/pjd/PUBS/ENC/cs99.pdf.
Franssen, Maarten, Peter Kroes, Thomas Reydon i Pieter E. Vermaas (red.). 2014. Artefact Kinds. Ontology and the Human-Made World. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Franssen, Maarten, i Peter Kroes. 2014. „Artefact Kinds, Ontological Criteria, and Forms of Mind-Dependence”. W: Artefact Kinds. Ontology and the Human-Made World, red. Franssen, Maarten, Peter Kroes, Thomas Reydon i Pieter E. Vermaas. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, s. 63–84. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-00801-1_5.
Franssen, Maarten, Gert-Jan Lokhorst, i Ibo van de Poel. 2018. Philosophy of Technology. W: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), red. Edward N. Zalta. Dostęp 06.10.2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/technology/.
Frigg, Roman. 2002. „Models and Representations: Why Structures are not Enough”. W: Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Sciences. Measurement in Physics and Economics Project Discussion Paper Series, DP MEAS 25/02, 1–42. London: London School of Economics. Roman Frigg. Dostęp 05.05.2021. http://www.romanfrigg.org/writings/Models_and_Representation.pdf.
Frigg, Roman. 2010. „Fiction and Scientific Representation”. W: Beyond Mimesis and Convention. Representation in Art and Science, red. Roman Frigg, Matthew C. Hunter, 97–138. Berlin, New York: Springer. Roman Frigg. Dostęp 05.05.2021. http://www.romanfrigg.org/writings/Fiction_and_Scientific_Representation.pdf
Galimberti, Umberto. 2009. „Man in the age of technology.” Journal of Analytical Psychology 54, 1: 3–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5922.2008.01753.x.
Gehlen, Arnold. 1980. Man in the age of technology. New York: Columbia University Press.
Giere, Ronald N. 1988. Explaining Science. A Cognitive Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goczyła, Krzysztof. 2011. Ontologie w systemach informatycznych. Warszawa: Akademicka Oficyna Wydawnicza EXIT.
Hardt, Łukasz. 2014. „Modele, metafory i teoria ekonomii”. Diametros 41: 13–37. DOI: 10.13153/diam.41.2014.650
Hardt, Łukasz. 2016. „On Similarities in Modelling and Metaphorizing Economic Phenomena”. Studia Metodologiczne 36: 147–174. DOI: 10.14746/sm.2016.36.8.
Hardt, Łukasz. 2018. „Economic Models and Ceteris Normalibus Laws”. Studia Ekonomiczne 1 2: 41–70.
Hartmann, Stephan. 1995. „Models as a Tool for Theory Construction: Some Strategies of Preliminary Physics”. W: Theories and Models in Scientific Processes red. William E. Herfel, Władysław Krajewski, Ilkka Niiniluoto i Ryszard Wójcicki, 49–67. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi.
Hilipen, Risto. 2018. „Artifact”. W: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), red. Edward N. Zalta. Dostęp 06.10.2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/artifact.
Humphreys, Paul, i Cyrille Imbert (red). 2013. Models, Simulations, and Representations. New York: Routledge.
Janusz, Robert. 2002. Program dla Wszechświata: filozoficzne aspekty języków obiektowych, Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM.
Janusz, Robert. 2007. „O metodach wirtualnych w paradygmacie obiektowym”. Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce 41: 125-131.
Kiepas, Andrzej, Mariola Sułkowska i Magdalena Wołek (red.). 2009. Człowiek a światy wirtualne. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Krajewski, Władysław. 1996. „Różne pojęcia modelu w nauce”. Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa 130, nr 4: 445–454.
Krąpiec, Mieczysław A. 2009. „Akt i możność”. W: Powszechna Encyklopedia Filozofii, t. 1, red. Andrzej Maryniarczyk. Polskie Towarzystwo Tomasza z Akwinu. Dostęp 06.10. 2019. http://www.ptta.pl/pef/pdf/a/aktim.pdf.
Latawiec, Anna. 2004. „Uwagi w sprawie wirtualności”. Studia Philosophiae Christianae 40, nr 2: 279–291.
Leciejewski, Sławomir. 2013. Cyfrowa rewolucja w badaniach eksperymentalnych: studium metodologiczno-filozoficzne, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
Mazurek, Mariusz. 2017. Modele w filozoficznych koncepcjach nauki. Warszawa: IFiS PAN
Mazurek, Mariusz. 2020. „O obiektach wirtualnych”. Filozofia i Nauka. Studia Filozoficzne i Interdyscyplinarne 8: 137-154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37240/FiN.2020.8.1.5.
Morgan, Mary, Tarja Knuuttila. 2012. „Models and Modelling in Economics”. W: Handbook of the Philosophy of Economics, red. Uskali Mäki, 49–87. North Holland: Elsevier Science.
Morgan, Mary, i Margaret Morrison. 1999. „Models as Mediating Instruments”. W: Models as Mediators. Perspectives on Natural and Social Science, red. Mary Morgan i Margaret Morrison, 10–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nersessian, Nancy J. 1999. „Model-based Reasoning in Conceptual Change”. W: Model-based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery, red. Lorenzo Magnani, Nancy J. Nersessian i Paul Thagard, 5–22. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
Pitt, Joseph C. 1999. Thinking About Technology: Foundations of the Philosophy of Technology. New York: Seven Bridges Press.
Polak, Paweł. 2020. „Modelowanie komputerowe w filozofii — uwagi metodologiczne”. Filozofia i Nauka. Studia Filozoficzne i Interdyscyplinarne 8: 203–212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37240/FiN.2020.8.1.9.
Portides, Demetris. 2011. „Seeking Representations of Phenomena: Phenomenological Models” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42, 2: 334–341.
Preston, Beth. 2018. „Artifact”. W: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), red. Edward N. Zalta. Dostęp 06.10.2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/artifact (06.10.2019).
Rapaport, William J. 2019. „Philosophy of Computer”. University at Buffalo. Department of Computer Science and Engineering. William J. Rapaport, Associate Professor Emeritus. Dostęp 06.10.2019. https://cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/phics.pdf.
Schummer, Joachim. 2001. „Aristotle on technology and nature”. Philosophia Naturalis 38: 105–120. Joachim Schummer. Dostęp 05.05.2021. http://joachim schummer.net/papers/2001_Aristotle_PhilNat.pdf.
Stromberg, Joseph. 2013. „What Is the Antropocene and Are We in It?” Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-the-anthropocene-and-are-we-in-it-164801414/(06.10.2019).
Suárez, Mauricio. 2003. „Scientific Representation: Against Similarity and Isomorphism”. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17, no. 3: 225–244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0269859032000169442.
Suárez, Mauricio. 2010. „Scientific Representation”. Blackwell’s Philosophy Compass 5: 91–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00261.x.
Thagard, Paul. 20052. Mind. Introduction to Cognitive Science. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: MIT Press.
Thomasson, Amie. 2007. „Artifacts and Human Concepts”. W: Creations of the Mind: Theories on Artifacts and Their Representation, red. Eric Margolis i Stephen Laurence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, s. 52–73.
Van Fraassen, Bas. 2008. Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winsberg, Eric. 2019. „Computer Simulations in Science”. W: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019), red. Edward N. Zalta. Dostęp 03.10.2020. https:// plato. stanford.edu/ archives/win2019/entries/simulations-science.
Wójcicki, Ryszard. 1994. Theories and Theoretical Models. W: Patrick Suppes: Scientific Philosopher. Vol. 1. Probability and Probabilistic Causality, red. Paul Humphreys, 125–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Woolgar, Steve. 2002. Virtual society? Technology, Cyberbole, Reality. Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press.
Zahorodna, Katarzyna. 2015. Problem reprezentacji umysłowych w rozszerzonych systemach poznawczych. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Fundacji „Projekt Nauka”.
Zeidler, Paweł. 2013. Models and Metaphors as Research Tools in Science. A Philosophical, Methodological and Semiotic Study of Science. Münster−Berlin−Wien−Zürich: LIT Verlag.
Copyright (c) 2021 Roczniki Filozoficzne
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
