Abstract
Batterman has recently argued that fundamental theories are typically explanatorily inadequate, in that there exist physical phenomena whose explanation requires that the conceptual apparatus of a fundamental theory be supplemented by that of a less fundamental theory. This paper is an extended critical commentary on that argument: situating its importance, describing its structure, and developing a line of objection to it. The objection is that in the examples Batterman considers, the mathematics of the less fundamental theory is definable in terms of the mathematics of the fundamental theory, and that only the latter need be given a physical interpretation—so we can view the desired explanation as drawing only upon resources internal to the more fundamental physical theory.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,Philosophy,History
Reference34 articles.
1. Une Introduction à la Méchanique Semi-Classique;Colin de Verdière;Une Introduction à la Méchanique Semi-Classique,1998
2. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Cited by
31 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. The Classical–Quantum Correspondence;Elements Philos Phys;2022-12-16
2. (In)effective realism?;European Journal for Philosophy of Science;2022-04-25
3. Is the classical limit “singular”?;Studies in History and Philosophy of Science;2021-08
4. Emergence of Spacetime from Structural Interpretations;Journal of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science;2020
5. On the reduction of general relativity to Newtonian gravitation;Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics;2019-11