Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-rcs6z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T11:08:51.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taking Reductionism to the Limit: How to Rebut the Antireductionist Argument from Infinite Limits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Juha Saatsi  and
Alexander Reutlinger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyzes the antireductionist argument from renormalization group explanations of universality and shows how it can be rebutted if one assumes that the explanation in question is captured by the counterfactual dependence account of explanation.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 85 , Issue 3 , July 2018 , pp. 455 - 482
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

†.

We benefited from comments on earlier drafts of this work presented at the University of Guelph and at workshops at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität and Leeds, and especially from the extensive and very helpful comments by the two anonymous referees. The support of the Durham Emergence Project and John Templeton Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Als-Nielsen, J., and Birgeneau, R. J. 1977. “Mean Field Theory, the Ginzburg Criterion, and Marginal Dimensionality of Phase Transitions.” American Journal of Physics 45:554–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, A., and Colyvan, M. 2011. “Indexing and Mathematical Explanation.” Philosophia Mathematica 19 (3): 323–34..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterman, R. W. 2000. “Multiple Realizability and Universality.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (1): 115–45..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterman, R. W. 2001. The Devil in the Details: Asymptotic Reasoning in Explanation, Reduction, and Emergence. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterman, R. W. 2002. “Asymptotics and the Role of Minimal Models.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (1): 21–38..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterman, R. W. 2010. “Reduction and Renormalization.” In Time, Chance, and Reduction: Philosophical Aspects of Statistical Mechanics, ed. Hüttemann, A. and Ernst, G., 159–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ernst, G. 2011. “Emergence, Singularities, and Symmetry Breaking.” Foundations of Physics 41 (6): 1031–50..Google Scholar
Batterman, R. W., and Rice, C. C. 2014. “Minimal Model Explanations.” Philosophy of Science 81 (3): 349–76..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokulich, A. 2008. “Can Classical Structures Explain Quantum Phenomena.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (2): 217–35..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, J. 2011a. “Emergence, Reduction and Supervenience: A Varied Landscape.” Foundations of Physics 41 (6): 920–59..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, J. 2011b. “Less Is Different: Emergence and Reduction Reconciled.” Foundations of Physics 41 (6): 1065–1135..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, J. 2014. “Reduction, Emergence, and Renormalization.” Journal of Philosophy 111 (1): 5–49..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannas, S. A. 1995. “One-Dimensional Ising Model with Long-Range Interactions: A Renormalization-Group Treatment.” Physical Review B 52 (5): 3034–37..Google ScholarPubMed
Cardy, J. 1996. Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics. Vol. 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. 2004. “Curie’s Principle and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18 (2–3): 173–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, M. E. 1983. Scaling, Universality and Renormalization Group Theory. Vol. 186. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Fisher, M. E. 1998. “Renormalization Group Theory: Its Basis and Formulation in Statistical Physics.” Reviews of Modern Physics 70 (2): 653–81..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, S., and Saatsi, J. 2018. “Symmetries and Explanatory Dependencies in Physics.” In Explanation beyond Causation: Philosophical Perspectives on Non-causal Explanations, ed. Reutlinger, A. and Saatsi, J. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frisch, M. 1998. “Theories, Models, and Explanation.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1962. “Explanation in Science and History.” In Frontiers of Science and Philosophy, ed. Colodny, R. G., 9–19. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Hüttemann, A., Kühn, R., and Terzidis, O. 2015. “Stability, Emergence and Part-Whole Reduction.” In Why More Is Different: Philosophical Issues in Condensed Matter Physics and Complex Systems, ed. Falkenburg, B. and Morrison, M., 169–200. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansson, L., and Saatsi, J. 2017. “Explanatory Abstractions.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. doi:10.1093/bjps/axx016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kistler, M. 2013. “The Interventionist Account of Causation and Non-causal Association Laws.” Erkenntnis 78 (1): 65–84..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopietz, P., Bartosch, L., and Schütz, F. 2010. Introduction to the Functional Renormalization Group. Vol. 798. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, M. 2009. “A Tale of Two Vectors.” Dialectica 63 (4): 397–431..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, M. 2013. “What Makes a Scientific Explanation Distinctively Mathematical.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (3): 485–511..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, M. 2015. “On ‘minimal Model Explanations’”: A Reply to Batterman and Rice.” Philosophy of Science 82 (2): 292–305..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McComb, W. D. 2004. Renormalization Methods: A Guide for Beginners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Menon, T., and Callender, C. 2013. “Turn and Face the Strange Ch-Ch-Changes: Philosophical Questions Raised by Phase Transitions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics, ed. Batterman, R., 189–223. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morrison, M. 2012. “Emergent Physics and Micro-Ontology.” Philosophy of Science 79 (1): 141–66..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, M. 2015. “Why Is More Different?” In Why More Is Different: Philosophical Issues in Condensed Matter Physics and Complex Systems, ed. Falkenburg, B. and Morrison, M., 91–114. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishimori, H., and Ortiz, G. 2010. Elements of Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, J. D. 2012. “Approximation and Idealization: Why the Difference Matters.” Philosophy of Science 79 (2): 207–32..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pathria, R., and Beale, P. 2009. Statistical Mechanics. Boston: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pexton, M. 2014. “How Dimensional Analysis Can Explain.” Synthese 191 (10): 2333–51..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pincock, C. 2007. “A Role for Mathematics in the Physical Sciences.” Nous 41 (2): 253–75..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psillos, S. 2011. “Living with the Abstract: Realism and Models.” Synthese 180 (1): 3–17..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reutlinger, A. 2016. “Is There a Monist Theory of Causal and Non-causal Explanations? The Counterfactual Theory of Scientific Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 83:733–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reutlinger, A. 2017a. “Are Causal Facts Really Explanatorily Emergent? Ladyman and Ross on Higher-Level Causal Facts and Renormalization Group Explanation.” Synthese 194:2291–2305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reutlinger, A. 2017b. “Do Renormalization Group Explanations Conform to the Commonality Strategy?” Journal of General Philosophy of Science 143:143–50.Google Scholar
Saatsi, J. 2016a. “On Explanations from Geometry of Motion.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. doi:10.1093/bjps/axw007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saatsi, J. 2016b. “On the ‘Indispensable Explanatory Role’ of Mathematics.” Mind 125:1045–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saatsi, J. 2017. “Dynamical Systems Theory and Explanatory Indispensability.” Philosophy of Science 84 (5): 892–904..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saatsi, J., and Pexton, M. 2013. “Reassessing Woodward’s Account of Explanation: Regularities, Counterfactuals, and Noncausal Explanations.” Philosophy of Science 80 (5): 613–24..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. C. 1989. Four Decades of Scientific Explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. 1963. Science, Perception, and Reality. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Sethna, J. 2006. Statistical Mechanics: Entropy, Order Parameters, and Complexity. Vol. 14. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, H. 1999. “Scaling, Universality, and Renormalization: Three Pillars of Modern Critical Phenomena.” Reviews of Modern Physics 71:S358–S366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strevens, Michael. 2008. Depth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, K. G. 1983. “The Renormalization Group and Critical Phenomena.” Reviews of Modern Physics 55 (3): 583–600..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, J. 2003a. “Experimentation, Causal Inference, and Instrumental Realism.” In The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation, ed. Radder, H., 87–118. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, H. 2003b. Making Things Happen: A Causal Theory of Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, H. 2018. “Some Varieties of Non-causal Explanation.” In Explanation beyond Causation: Philosophical Perspectives on Non-causal Explanations, ed. Reutlinger, A. and Saatsi, J. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zinn-Justin, J. 2002. “Determination of Critical Exponents and Equation of State by Field Theory Methods.” In New Developments in Quantum Field Theory, ed. Damgaard, P. H. and Jurkiewicz, J., 217–32. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Zinn-Justin, J. 2007. Phase Transitions and Renormalization Group. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar