THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS: THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL PROBLEM
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Thought experiments in physics involve epistemological questions such as: How can we learn about the world through merely thinking about imagined scenarios? Realist and empiricist philosophers face that question disregarding that such experiments are about idealized systems. We try to sustain that thought experiments, because of their very nature, neither provide new knowledge ─confirmed true statements─ nor new empirical data about the physical world. Instead, as Kuhn maintains, their import could improve our conceptual apparatus, allowing a new understanding of the physical world. As a study case, we analyze Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen´s paradox to give support for these claims. The proposed novel topic in this paper is the study of such paradox in the light of Kuhn´s epistemological account of thought experiments.
Keywords:
Cited by
Article Details
References
Aspect, A., J. Dalibard and G. Roger. (1982). "Experimental test of Bell´s inequalities using time-varying analyzers", Physical Review Letters, 49, 1804-1807.
Bell, J. S. (1964). "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox", Physics, 1, 195-200.
Bohm, D. (1952). Physical Review, 85, 166 and 180.
Bohm, D. and Y. Aharonov. (1957). Physical Review, 108, 1070.
Brown, J. R. (1986). "Thought Experiments since the Scientific Revolutions", International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 1, 1-15.
Brown, J. R. (1991). "A Platonic Account of Thought Experiments", en T. Horowitz and G. Massey (Eds.), Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 119-128.
Brown, J. R. and Y. Fehige. (2019). "Thought Experiments", en Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2019 Edition, Edward N. Zalta (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment.
Einstein, A., B. Podolsky and N. Rosen. (1935). "Can Quantum-Mechanical Descriptions of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?", Physical Review, 47, 777-780.
Gendler, T. S. (2000). Thought Experiment. On the Powers and Limits of Imaginary Cases, New York and London: Garland Publishing.
Horowitz, T. and G. Massey (Eds.). (1991). "Introduction", en Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Kuhn, T. S. (1964). "The Function of Thought Experiments", reprinted in T. S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1977, 240-265.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (2ª edition). Chicago, Chicago University Press.
McMullin, E. (1985). "Galilean Idealization", Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 16(3), 247-273.
Norton, J. D. (1991). "Thought Experiments in Einstein´s Work", en T. Horowitz and G. Massey (Eds.) Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 129-148.
Norton, J. D. (1996). "Are Thought Experiments Just What You Thought?", Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 26(3), 333-366.
Nowak, L. (1992). "The Idealizational Approach to Science: A Survey", en J. Brzezinski and L. Nowak (Eds.), Idealization: Approximation and Truth, Amsterdam/Atlanta: Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of Science and Humanities, vol. 25, 9-63.
Peacock, K. A. (2018). "Happiest Thoughts. Great Thought Experiments of Modern Physics", en M. T. Stuart, Y. Fehige and J. R. Brown (Eds.), The Routledge Companion of Thought Experiments, New York: Routledge, 211-242.
Reiss, J. (2018). "Thought Experiments and Idealization", en M. T. Stuart, Y. Fehige and J. R. Brown (Eds.), The Routledge Companion of Thought Experiments, New York: Routledge, 469-483.
Rolleri, J. L. (2013). "Idealized Laws and Explanatory Models", Teorema, Vol. XXXII/2, 5-27.
Sorensen R. A. (1992). Thought Experiments. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stuart, M. T., Y. Fehige and J. R. Brown (2018). "Thought Experiments. State of the Art", en M. T. Stuart, Y. Fehige and J. R. Brown (Eds.), The Routledge Companion of Thought Experiments, New York: Routledge, 1-28.
Uҁar, S. (2019). "General Features and Problems of Thought Experiments Used in Physical Sciences", en V. Kamer (Ed.), IX Mantik Salisstayi Kitabi, Instambul: Mantik Derne Gi Yayinlari, 445-463.
Van Dyck, M. (2003). The Roles of One Thought Experiment in Interpreting Quantum Mechanics. Werner Heisenberg meets Thomas Kuhn. Philosophica, 72, 79-103.
Weisberg, M. (2007). "Three Kinds of Idealization", Journal of Philosophy, 104, 639-659.
Most read articles by the same author(s)
- José Luis Rolleri, Invariance, symmetry and lawfulness , Agora. Papeles de Filosofía: Vol 38 No 2 (2019)