I argue that we cannot adequately characterize idealization and abstraction and the distinction between the two on the grounds that they have distinct semantic properties. By doing so, on the one hand, we focus on the conceptual products of the two processes in making the distinction and we overlook the importance of the nature of the thought processes that underlie model-simplifying assumptions. On the other hand, we implicitly rely on a sense of abstraction as subtraction, which is unsuitable for explicating (...) scientific model construction. Instead, I argue that a sense of abstraction as extraction is more suitable. Finally, I suggest a different way to distinguish the two processes that avoids these problems. Namely, that both idealization and abstraction could be understood as particular modes of application of the same cognitive process: selective attention. (shrink)

A distinction is made between theory-driven and phenomenological models. It is argued that phenomenological models are significant means by which theory is applied to phenomena. They act both as sources of knowledge of their target systems and are explanatory of the behaviors of the latter. A version of the shell-model of nuclear structure is analyzed and it is explained why such a model cannot be understood as being subsumed under the theory structure of Quantum Mechanics. Thus its representational capacity does (...) not stem from its close link to theory. It is shown that the shell model yields knowledge about the target and is explanatory of certain behaviors of nuclei. Aspects of the process by which the shell model acquires its representational capacity are analyzed. It is argued that these point to the conclusion that the representational status of the model is a function of its capacity to function as a source of knowledge and its capacity to postulate and explain underlying mechanisms that give rise to the observed behavior of its target. (shrink)

This eprint has been removed by the author's request.

Nelson Goodman argued convincingly that in order to understand the representation relation one should dissociate it from the relation of resemblance because of the logical differences between the two concepts. Resemblance is reflexive and symmetric whereas representation is not. Furthermore, Goodman suggested that what lies at the core of representation is denotation. According to Goodman, if X represents Y then X must denote Y, but he recognized that by opting for an analysis of representation only based on this idea of (...) denotation we run into problems. There are two reasons for this. The first reason is that X could be considered to be a representation of Y by mere stipulation. The second reason is that in many cases X represents Y but Y does not exist and thus there is nothing that X denotes. Both of these problems are important when addressing questions about scientific representation. First, we do not think that we do justice to scientific practices by thinking that scientific models represent by mere stipulation. Second, some of our scientific models represent what we often label ideal systems or ideal states of affairs, and if such systems do not exist in the actual world then it would also not make much sense to claim that our models denote such systems. I argue in this paper that there is a way to overcome these two problems and explicate “representation” by means of “denotation”. (shrink)