Answer To Instrumentalist Theories
Somehow I seem to be unable to submit anything on Wattle - I have tried several times …
So I have to post the Answer to “Instrumentalist Theories” brought up by Jack Davies on this page:
Yeah, I found it really difficult to decide on one theory – so many came in my mind … – the further development of heliocentrism like Tycho Brahe’s geo-heliocentric system, the “Aether”, the “Bohr model”. But then I decided on the theory that came into my mind first: Spacetime. Why? Because that was the first theory that I declared as instrumentalistic before I even knew that such a category existed.
Initially I hesitated because I think the theories mentioned above would have been easier to write about because there is “no doubt” (or maybe I should rather say less doubt) that they are instrumentalistic. Whereas with spacetime it is not as certain that this theory is instrumentalistic and not “real”. But as it was said in the lectures it mainly depends on ones/ society’s conception (-> no theory has survived for longer than 200 years!) – So I guess it is a very relative definition anyway. But this very fact is what makes instrumentalism so fascinating! Well, I hope that I was able to explain why spacetime seems to be an instrumentalistic theory to me.
Julia Heuritsch
I would hesitate to identify the conception of spacetime (and i guess more broadly, Einstein’s relativity) as an instrumentalist theory, because one key part of the assignment directive that strikes me, is that it’s not society’s or our perception of a theory as strictly “false” but useful which makes it instrumentalist, but rather the views of the theory’s creators or proponents…
So for example, while we may now look back at the modified Aristotelian model of a geocentric solar system and identify it as a useful tool for calculating and predicting phenomena, but one that didn’t reflect the nature of what we now think is the “true” reality, nevertheless I would challenge the notion that it is instrumentalist, because its proponents didn’t identify it as such. So in the case of considering spacetime, while it may turn out to be a useful calculational tool like many of the theories which it has superseded, but perhaps not “true” in the sense we are considering, I would still say that it is not instrumentalist, as it isn’t explicitly presented AS an instrumentalist theory… Which is perhaps where it differs from the instrumentalism in Osiander’s labeling of Copernicus’ work, if you see what I mean.
I hope that makes some semblance of sense. But perhaps my more restrictive view of what constitutes instrumentalism is why I am having such a hard time picking a theory to write about! It’s probably worth straightening out with Jason when we get the chance.
If you see this, Jason, could you give us some pointers?
- Owen
Owen, would you please clarify why you think that the assignment task limits the scope of instrumentalism only to “the views of the theory’s creators or proponents”? I fail to see a single phrase in the handout that would even hint at that…
Also, with such a directive, Copernicus’ theory wouldn’t be instrumentalist, for, as far as I know, Osiander wasn’t it’s creator or proponent.
Max
My fault. I think I probably said something misleading to Owen in a tutorial.
I didn’t mean to say that it’s only the view of the original proponent of a theory that matters.
What I DID mean to say is that a theory is always a social construct (regardless of whether it’s also something else, e.g. a true depiction of the world). That means that you can’t identify a theory without saying WHOSE theory you’re talking about. It doesn’t have to be the original proponent, but it does have to be a particular person or a coherent social group.
The important point which follows from this is that often we think we’re talking about one theory when in fact we’re talking about a series of people using the same equations but thinking about them differently, and that means we’re really talking about several theories.
To take the example of Ptolemaic cosmology, some people originally thought of it as describing the real world. So that version of it was realist. Then it became unbelievable as a theory of the real world (e.g. because of the way the spheres clashed with each other), but it was still the best tool for calculation, so at that point it became a NEW theory (but with the same equations as the old theory), and that NEW theory was instrumentalist.
Jason
