Skip to main content

Imperfect Representations

F. Samaniego, M. Suarez and I. San Pedro
I currently hold a postdoctoral fellowship at the Institute of Philosophical Research, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). I recently finished my doctoral research at the Complutense University in Madrid on interventionist explanations of entropy raising, under the supervision of Mauricio Suárez. He is Associate Professor in Logic and Philosophy of Science at Universidad Complutense de Madrid. During 2013-2015 he is a Marie Curie Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Philosophy (School of Advanced Studies, London University).

In this post I describe how the research interests of Mauricio Suárez partially overlap with the themes of the project on the epistemic innocence of imperfect cognitions. One of his main areas of research is the epistemology of science, more precisely, models, inference and scientific representation. Suárez defends that science is not as realistic and algorithmically objective as people commonly believe. He defends the view that, on the contrary, fictions and imperfect representations are often used in scientific practice. And this scientist’s creativity, this partial preservation of reality of their models, far of being negative is a positive and helpful engine in the scientific research.

In his book “Fictions in Science” (2009), Suárez collects a representative sample of articles written by experts on this topic. As an illustration of the inferential role of fictions in scientific modelling, Suarez develops in detail the case study of models of the internal structure of stars in astrophysics. This can be found in his article “Fictions, Conditionals, and Stellar Astrophysics” (2013). The emphasis on fictions, idealizations and imperfect match of model sources and targets, has some bearings on the present project since it suggests strongly that cognitive representations, even in the sciences, are incomplete, partial and suggestive rather than entirely descriptive of their systems.

Suárez's work emphasizes the ways in which scientific cognition involves models that incorporate incomplete and factually erroneous assumptions but can nonetheless serve helpful cognitive and heuristic purposes in research. There is therefore much emphasis on the role of erroneous or fictitious assumptions in practice. In opposition to the analytical inquiries into representation, Suarez's practice-based inquiry not only considers a diverse range of scientific modeling techniques, but also takes on account the purposes of those who use the representations. His practical account is designed to answer "what are the effective means that scientists employ to get representations to deliver the required ‘goods’".

During the construction of the representation itself it matters a great deal whether it is going to be used, for example, to transmit information, to perform some computation, or as an educational tool. Suárez argues for a sophisticated version of the practical account of representation. The details of the difficulties that his account overcomes, and a clear panoramic of the advantages and disadvantages of different accounts of representation (Pierce, Hughes, Campell, Hesse, Suárez) can be found in “Scientific Representation” (2009).

The other branch of the research developed by Suárez concerns the philosophical foundations of physics. More precisely, he has analyzed the role of causal inference in quantum mechanics, and he has widely explored the consequences of understanding physical probabilities as “propensities”, namely, as dispositions of the physical systems.

Popular posts from this blog

Delusions in the DSM 5

This post is by Lisa Bortolotti. How has the definition of delusions changed in the DSM 5? Here are some first impressions. In the DSM-IV (Glossary) delusions were defined as follows: Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.

Rationalization: Why your intelligence, vigilance and expertise probably don't protect you

Today's post is by Jonathan Ellis , Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Public Philosophy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Eric Schwitzgebel , Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Riverside. This is the first in a two-part contribution on their paper "Rationalization in Moral and Philosophical thought" in Moral Inferences , eds. J. F. Bonnefon and B. Trémolière (Psychology Press, 2017). We’ve all been there. You’re arguing with someone – about politics, or a policy at work, or about whose turn it is to do the dishes – and they keep finding all kinds of self-serving justifications for their view. When one of their arguments is defeated, rather than rethinking their position they just leap to another argument, then maybe another. They’re rationalizing –coming up with convenient defenses for what they want to believe, rather than responding even-handedly to the points you're making. Yo

A co-citation analysis of cross-disciplinarity in the empirically-informed philosophy of mind

Today's post is by  Karen Yan (National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University) on her recent paper (co-authored with Chuan-Ya Liao), " A co-citation analysis of cross-disciplinarity in the empirically-informed philosophy of mind " ( Synthese 2023). Karen Yan What drives us to write this paper is our curiosity about what it means when philosophers of mind claim their works are informed by empirical evidence and how to assess this quality of empirically-informedness. Building on Knobe’s (2015) quantitative metaphilosophical analyses of empirically-informed philosophy of mind (EIPM), we investigated further how empirically-informed philosophers rely on empirical research and what metaphilosophical lessons to draw from our empirical results.  We utilize scientometric tools and categorization analysis to provide an empirically reliable description of EIPM. Our methodological novelty lies in integrating the co-citation analysis tool with the conceptual resources from the philosoph