Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-s6l46 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T11:07:38.562Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientific Explanation between Principle and Constructive Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Laura Felline
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this article is to analyze the role of the distinction between principle and constructive theories in the question of the explanatory power of special relativity. We show how the distinction breaks down at the explanatory level. We assess Harvey Brown's claim that, as a principle theory, special relativity lacks explanatory power. We argue that this claim is based on an unrealistic picture of the kind of explanations provided by principle (and constructive) theories. Finally, we argue that the structural account of explanation captures the explanatory success of special relativity.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 5 , December 2011 , pp. 989 - 1000
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

‡

This research was funded by a Master and Back grant from Regione Sardegna. I am very thankful to Guido Bacciagaluppi, Steven French, Mathias Frisch, Mauro Dorato, John Norton, and Bryan Roberts for comments on this article. I am especially thankful to Mathias Frisch and John Norton for their continuous support and encouragement.

References

Balashov, Yuri, and Janssen, Michel. 2003. “Presentism and Relativity.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54 (2): 327–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterman, Robert. 2002. The Devil in the Details: Asymptotic Reasoning in Explanation, Reduction and Emergence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Harvey. 2005. Physical Relativity: Space-Time Structure from a Dynamical Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Harvey, and Pooley, Oliver. 2006. “Minkowski Space-Time: A Glorious Non-Entity.” In The Ontology of Spacetime, ed. Dieks, Dennis, 67–89. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Harvey, and Timpson, Christopher. 2006. “Why Special Relativity Should Not Be a Template for a Fundamental Reformulation of Quantum Mechanics.” In Physical Theory and Its Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Bub, ed. Demopoulos, William and Pitowsky, Itamar, 29–42. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, Robert. 1998. “Structural Explanation in Quantum Theory.” Unpublished manuscript, PhilSci Archive, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/91/.Google Scholar
Dorato, Mauro. 2007. “Relativity Theory between Structural and Dynamical Explanations.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (1): 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorato, Mauro, and Felline, Laura. 2010a. “Scientific Explanation and Scientific Structuralism.” In Scientific Structuralism: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, ed. Bokulich, Alicia and Bokulich, Peter, 161–77. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Dorato, Mauro, and Felline, Laura. 2010b. “Structural Explanations in Minkowski Spacetime: Which Account of Models?” In Space, Time, and Spacetime: Physical and Philosophical Implications of Minkowski's Unification of Space and Time, ed. Petkov, Vassil, 193–209. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felline, Laura. 2010. “Remarks on a Structural Account of Scientific Explanation.” In Launch of the European Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 2, ed. Suàrez, Mauricio, Dorato, Mauro, and Redei, Miklos, 43–54. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Hagar, Amit. 2008. “Length Matters.” Pt. 1, “The Einstein-Swann Correspondence and the Constructive Approach to STR.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Science 139 (3): 532–56.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. I. G. 1989a. “Bell's Theorem, Ideology, and Structural Explanation.” In Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory, ed. Cushing, James and McMullin, Ernan, 195–207. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. I. G.. 1989b. The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, R. I. G.. 1997. “Models and Representation.” Philosophy of Science 64 (Proceedings): S325–S336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, Michael. 2007. “Drawing the Line between Kinematics and Dynamics.” Presented at the Symposium on Time and Relativity, Minneapolis, October 25–27, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00003895/.Google Scholar
Norton, John. 2008. “Why Constructive Relativity Fails.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (4): 821–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pincock, Christopher. 2007. “A Role for Mathematics in the Physical Sciences.” Nous 41 (2): 253–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Wesley C. 1984. Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Swoyer, Chris. 1991. “Structural Representation and Surrogative Reasoning.” Synthese 87:449–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar