Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:48:05.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Value of Analogical Models in Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2010

Michael Ruse
Michael Ruse
Affiliation:
University of Guelph
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

No one denies that scientists frequently use bodies of knowledge from already-explored fields of inquiry as models as they argue analogically in the attempt to build new theories in other fields; however, there appears to be considerable controversy about the values of the analogical models when once the new theories are complete. One school of thought has it that although acquaintance with a theory's analogical models might serve a useful pedagogical value—helping to introduce the novice to complex ideas—essentially such acquaintance is theoretically superfluous, and is indeed often dangerously misleading. Thus, R.B. Braithwaite cautions us that “The price of the employment of models is eternal vigilance,” and Mario Bunge states flatly that:

In factual science analogy and analogical inference are welcome as theory construction tools. By the same token they are signs of growth, symptoms that the theory is still in the making rather than mature. A mature classical electrodynamics has no need for elastic tubes of force: the field—a non-mechanical substance—suffices for all purposes, the mechanical analogies being regarded as removable appendages.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 1973 , pp. 246 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1973

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.)

References

1 Scientific Explanation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1953), 933Google Scholar

2 “Analogy in quantum theory: from insight to nonsense.” Brit. J. Phil. Sci. (1968) 18, 265–86, 285CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Another prominent supporter of this position is C. G. Hempel. See, for example, his Aspects of Scientific Explanation, New York: The Free Press (1965)Google Scholar.

3 Models and Analogies in Science. Indiana: Notre Dame University Press, (1966)Google Scholar.

4 Models and Metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press (1962)Google Scholar.

5 Marchant, J., Alfred Russel Wallace: Life and Reminiscences. New York (1916), 1, 136Google Scholar.

6 Darwin, F. (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Including an Autobiographical Chapter, London: John Murray (1887), 1, 83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 I provide a detailed analysis of these arguments by Darwin, in my paper “Natural Selection in The Origin of Species.” Studies Hist. Phil. Sci. (1971) 1, 311–51Google Scholar.

8 The Origin of Species, 1st edition 1859. Penguin reprint, 1968, p. 130.

9 Origin, 137.

10 Many have complained that Darwin had no right to assume that because we find something like the peacock's tail beautiful, the peahen finds it in any sense beautiful.

11 I consider in some detail the way in which knowledge about artificial selection can be used for claims about natural selection in my paper “Confirmation and falsification of theories of evolution.” Scientia (1969) CIV, 329–57Google Scholar, and in my forthcoming book, The Philosophy of Biology, London: Hutchinson.

12 Origin, 209–10.

13 Origin, 98.

14 Origin, 435.

15 “The Origin of Species”, North British Review (1867) 43, 149–71, 153Google Scholar.

16 Variorum edition of the Origin of Species, ed. Peckham, M., Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (1959), 310, 4 – 6Google Scholar: e. This passage is from the fifth edition of the Origin.