Abstract
AbstractUnderstanding natural phenomena is an important aim of science. Since the turn of the millennium the notion of scientific understanding has been a hot topic of debate in the philosophy of science. A bone of contention in this debate is the role of truth and representational accuracy in scientific understanding. So-called factivists and non-factivists disagree about the extent to which the theories and models that are used to achieve understanding must be (at least approximately) true or accurate. In this paper we address this issue by examining a case from the practice of synthetic chemistry. We investigate how understanding is obtained in this field by means of an in-depth analysis of the famous synthesis of periplanone B by W. Clark Still. It turns out that highly idealized models—that are representationally inaccurate and sometimes even inconsistent—and qualitative concepts are essential for understanding the synthetic pathway and accordingly for achieving the synthesis. We compare the results of our case study to various factivist and non-factivist accounts of how idealizations may contribute to scientific understanding and conclude that non-factivism offers a more plausible interpretation of the practice of synthetic chemistry. Moreover, our case study supports a central thesis of the non-factivist theory of scientific understanding developed by De Regt (Understanding scientific understanding. Oxford University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190652913.001.0001 , 2017), namely that scientific understanding requires intelligibility rather than representational accuracy, and that idealization is one way to enhance intelligibility.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Philosophy
Reference40 articles.
1. Anslyn, E. V., & Dougherty, D. A. (2006). Modern physical organic chemistry. University Science Books.
2. Bangu, S. (2017). Is understanding factive? Unificationism and the history of science. Balkan Journal of Philosophy, 9, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.5840/bjp2017913
3. Berson, J. A. (2003). Chemical discovery and the logicians’ program. Wiley.
4. De Regt, H. W. (2015). Scientific understanding: Truth or dare? Synthese, 192, 3781–3797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0538-7
5. De Regt, H. W. (2017). Understanding scientific understanding. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190652913.001.0001