Synthese 192 (11):3463-3485 (
2015)
Copy
BIBTEX
Abstract
In this paper I show how certain requirements must be set on any tenable
account of scientific representation, such as the requirement allowing for misrepresentation.
I then continue to argue that two leading accounts of scientific representation—
the inferential account and the interpretational account—are flawed for they do not
satisfy such requirements. Through such criticism, and drawing on an analogy from
non-scientific representation, I also sketch the outline of a superior account. In particular,
I propose to take epistemic representations to be intentional objects that come
with reference, semantic contents and a representational code, and I identify faithful
representations as representations that act as guides to ontology.