How do different interpretations work together in a single scientific explanatory project? A case study of the Olami-Feder-Christensen model of earthquakes

IF 1.5 1区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE European Journal for Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2024-07-05 DOI:10.1007/s13194-024-00591-8
Hernán Bobadilla
{"title":"How do different interpretations work together in a single scientific explanatory project? A case study of the Olami-Feder-Christensen model of earthquakes","authors":"Hernán Bobadilla","doi":"10.1007/s13194-024-00591-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Interpretation plays a central role in using scientific models to explain natural phenomena: Meaning must be bestowed upon a model in terms of <i>what it is</i> and <i>what it represents</i> to be used for model explanations. However, it remains unclear how capacious and complex interpretation in models can be, particularly when conducted by the same group of scientists in the context of one explanatory project. This paper sheds light upon this question by examining modelling and explanatory practices related to the Olami-Feder-Christensen model of earthquakes. This case study shows that various interpretations are intricately connected in the overall meaning of a model used for model explanations. This leads to a manifold picture of interpretation, according to which scientific models are construed as networks of interconnected meanings. As scientists ponder and integrate these various interpretations, guided by locally attended epistemic interests, they achieve model explanations with layers of content, both in their explanantia and explananda.</p>","PeriodicalId":48832,"journal":{"name":"European Journal for Philosophy of Science","volume":"77 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal for Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-024-00591-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Interpretation plays a central role in using scientific models to explain natural phenomena: Meaning must be bestowed upon a model in terms of what it is and what it represents to be used for model explanations. However, it remains unclear how capacious and complex interpretation in models can be, particularly when conducted by the same group of scientists in the context of one explanatory project. This paper sheds light upon this question by examining modelling and explanatory practices related to the Olami-Feder-Christensen model of earthquakes. This case study shows that various interpretations are intricately connected in the overall meaning of a model used for model explanations. This leads to a manifold picture of interpretation, according to which scientific models are construed as networks of interconnected meanings. As scientists ponder and integrate these various interpretations, guided by locally attended epistemic interests, they achieve model explanations with layers of content, both in their explanantia and explananda.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同的解释如何在一个科学解释项目中共同发挥作用?奥拉米-费德勒-克里斯滕森地震模型案例研究
在利用科学模型解释自然现象的过程中,解释起着核心作用:必须从模型是什么和代表什么的角度赋予模型意义,才能用于模型解释。然而,模型解释的广度和复杂性如何,尤其是由同一组科学家在一个解释项目中进行解释时的广度和复杂性如何,目前仍不清楚。本文通过研究与奥拉米-费德勒-克里斯滕森地震模型相关的建模和解释实践,揭示了这一问题。这一案例研究表明,在用于模型解释的模型的整体含义中,各种解释错综复杂地联系在一起。这导致了解释的多面性,根据这种解释,科学模型被理解为相互关联的意义网络。科学家们在局部认识兴趣的引导下,思考并整合这些不同的解释,从而实现了在解释和被解释中都具有多层次内容的模型解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal for Philosophy of Science
European Journal for Philosophy of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: The European Journal for Philosophy of Science publishes groundbreaking works that can deepen understanding of the concepts and methods of the sciences, as they explore increasingly many facets of the world we live in. It is of direct interest to philosophers of science coming from different perspectives, as well as scientists, citizens and policymakers. The journal is interested in articles from all traditions and all backgrounds, as long as they engage with the sciences in a constructive, and critical, way. The journal represents the various longstanding European philosophical traditions engaging with the sciences, but welcomes articles from every part of the world.
期刊最新文献
Questioning origins: the role of ethical and metaethical claims in the debate about the evolution of morality The extraterrestrial hypothesis: an epistemological case for removing the taboo Nagelian reduction and approximation The replication crisis is less of a “crisis” in Lakatos’ philosophy of science than it is in Popper’s Stopping rule and Bayesian confirmation theory
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1