Advertisement

Keeping Globally Inconsistent Scientific Theories Locally Consistent

  • Michèle Friend
  • María del Rosario Martínez-Ordaz
Chapter
Part of the Trends in Logic book series (TREN, volume 47)

Abstract

Most scientific theories are globally inconsistent. Chunk and Permeate is a method of rational reconstruction that can be used to separate, and identify, locally consistent chunks of reasoning or explanation. This then allows us to justify reasoning in a globally inconsistent theory. We extend chunk and permeate by adding a visually transparent way of guiding the individuation of chunks and deciding on what information permeates from one chunk to the next. The visual representation is in the form of bundle diagrams. We then extend the bundle diagrams to include not only reasoning in the presence of inconsistent information or reasoning in the logical sense of deriving a conclusion from premises, but more generally reasoning in the sense of trying to understand a phenomenon in science. This extends the use of the bundle diagrams in terms of the base space and the fibres. We then apply this to a case in physics, that of understanding binding energies in the nucleus of an atom using together inconsistent models: the liquid drop model and the shell model. We draw some philosophical conclusions concerning scientific reasoning, paraconsistent reasoning, the role of logic in science and the unity of science.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Diderik Batens, Koen Lefever, Elías Okón Gurvich, Paweł Pawłowski and Elisángela Ramírez-Cámara for the feedback offered throughout the development of this research. Special thanks are deserved to the anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions. The first author would like to acknowledge active support from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and the Research Stays Program (PREI)-UNAM. The second author was supported by the PAPIIT Projects IA401117 “Philosophical Aspects of Contra-Classical Logics” and IA401717 “Pluralism and Normativity in Logic and Mathematics”.

References

  1. 1.
    Abramsky, Samson. 2015. Rui Soares Barbosa, Kohei Kishida, Raymond Lal, and Shane Mansfield. Cohomology and Paradox: Contextuality. February.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andréka, Hajnal, Németi, István, and Ahmed, Tarek Sayed. 2008. Omitting types for finite variable fragments and complete representations of algebras. Journal of Symbolic Logic 73 (1): 65–89.  https://doi.org/10.2178/jsl/1208358743, https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.jsl/1208358743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batens, Diderik. 1992. Do we need a hierarchical model of science? Inference, explanation, and other frustrations, 199–215. Oakland: University of California press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benham, Richard, Chris Mortensen, and Graham Priest. 2014. Chunk and permeate III: the Dirac delta function. Synthese 191 (13): 3057–3062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berkeley, George. 1734. The Analyst (online edition). In: David R. Wilkins (ed.) Last accessed: 23 February 2013. http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Berkeley/Analyst/.
  6. 6.
    Brown, Bryson. 1990. How to be realistic about inconsistency in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 21 (2): 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown, Bryson. 2016. From consequence relation to reasoning strategies. “Shut up,” he explained. Essays in Honour of Peter K. Schotch, 1–10. Milton Keynes: College Publications.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown, Bryson. 2016. On the preservation of reliability. Logical studies of paraconsistent reasoning in science and mathematics, 65–80., Trends in logic Cham: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40220-8_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown, Bryson. 2017. Paraconsistency, pluralistic models and reasoning in climate science.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brown, Bryson, and Graham Priest. 2004. Chunk and permeate, a paraconsistent inference strategy. part i: the infinitesimal calculus. Journal of Philosophical Logic 33 (4): 379–388. August.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brown, M.Bryson, and Graham Priest. 2015. Chunk and permeate II: Bohr’s hydrogen atom. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5 (3): 297–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chang, Hasok. 2014. Is water\(H_2O\)?: evidence, realism and pluralism, 2012th ed. Cambridge: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen, I-Tso. 2011. The liquid drop model. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph241/chen1/.
  14. 14.
    Cook, Norman D. 2010. Models of the atomic nucleus: unification through a lattice of nucleons. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davey, Kevin. 2014. Can good science be logically inconsistent?. Synthese (Is Science Inconsistent? Special Issue) 191: 3009–3026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fossion, Ruben, Coster De Caroline, J.E. Garcia-Ramos, T. Werner, and Kristiaan Heyde. 2002. Nuclear binding energies: global collective structure and local shell-model correlations. Nuclear Physics A 697 (3–4): 703–747.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fowler, A. 1913. The Spectra of Helium and Hyrogen. Nature 92: 95–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Friend, Michele. 2014. Pluralism in mathematics: a new position in philosophy of mathematics. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frisch, Mathias. 2004. Inconsistency in Classical Electrodynamics. Philosophy of Science 71: 525–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frisch, Mathias. 2005. Inconsistency, Asymmetry, and Non-Locality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Friend, Michele. 2017. Inconsistency in mathematics and inconsistency in chemistry. Humana. Mente 32: 31–51.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Greiner, W., and J. A. Maruhn. 1996. Nuclear Models, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hellman, Geoffrey, and John L. Bell. 2006. Pluralism and the foundations of mathematics. Scientific Pluralism 19: 64–79.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hempel, Carl G. 2000. Selected philosophical essays. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Imre, Lakatos. 1965. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, Vol. 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1st edition edition, October 1970.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Krause, Decio, and Jonas RB Arenhart. 2016. The logical foundations of scientific theories: languages, structures, and models. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Laudan, Larry. 1977. Progress and its problems: towards a theory of scientific growth, vol. 282. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Laudan, Larry. 1981. A problem-solving approach to scientific Progress. In: I. Hacking (ed.) Scientific Revolutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 148.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jean-Marc. Lévy-Leblond. 2014. La science est-elle universelle? Fondation Clouste Gulbenkian. Art et Caractére.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Makinson, David. 2003. Bridges between classical and nonmonotonic logic. Logic Journal of IGPL 11 (1): 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Makinson, David. 2005. Bridges from classical to nonmonotonic logic. London: King’s College Publications.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Margaret, Morrison. 2011. One phenomenon, many models: inconsistency and complementarity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42 (2): 342–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Martínez-Ordaz, María del Rosario. 2014. A classification for functional and inconsistent scientific theories: scope and limitations. Master Thesis. UNAM, México. In Spanish.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Meheus, Joke. 2002. How to reason sensibly yet naturally from inconsistencies. Inconsistency in Science, 151–164. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meheus, Joke. 2002. Inconsistency in science, vol. 2. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mohamed, Elsamahi. 2005. Coherence between theories. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 35 (2): 331–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Morrison, Margaret. 2015. Reconstructing reality: models, mathematics, and simulations. Oxford: Oxford Studies in Philosophy.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Needham, Paul. 2015. One substance or more? Philosophy of Chemistry, 91–105. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Peter, Vickers. 2013. Understanding inconsistent science. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Peter, Vickers. 2014. Theory flexibility and inconsistency in science. Synthese (Is Science Inconsistent? Special Issue) 191: 2891–2906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Piazza, Mario, and Gabriele Pulcini. 2016. Uniqueness of axiomatic extensions of cut-free classical propositional logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Popper, Karl. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Priest, Graham. 2002. Inconsistency and the empirical sciences. Inconsistency in science, 119–128. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Priest, Graham. 2006. Doubt truth to be a liar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Priest, Graham. 2014. Logical pluralism: another application for chunk and permeate. Erkenntnis 79 (2): 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Priest, Graham, and Routley, Richard 1983. On Paraconsistency. Research Report 13, Logic Group, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rescher, Nicholas, and Ruth Manor. 1970. On inference from inconsistent premisses. Theory and decision 1 (2): 179–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schummer, Joachim. 2015. The methodological pluralism of chemistry and its philosophical implications. Philosophy of Chemistry, 57–72. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    von Groote, H., Hilf, E. R., and K. Takahashi. 1976. New semiempirical shell correction to the droplet model. [Surface diffuseness, FORTRAN, mass formula, tables]. United States. Web.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-640X(76)90031-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ya Amusia, M., and Yu. Kornyushin. 2000. Application of the nuclear liquid drop model to atomic and molecular physics problems. Contemporary Physics 41 (4): 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michèle Friend
    • 1
  • María del Rosario Martínez-Ordaz
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyThe George Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito Maestro Mario de la Cueva s/n, Ciudad UniversitariaCoyoacán, Ciudad de MexicoMexico

Personalised recommendations