Representational Crossbreeding

Part of the New Directions in the Philosophy of Science book series (NDPS)


This chapter presents how to carry out approach-based analyses of cases of interdisciplinary science. It starts out by providing the general framework for such an analysis: The Giere duplex. With that in place, the discussion zooms in on the details emphasised by approach-based analysis in order to show how one might disentangle the epistemic elements of integrated approaches.


Interdisciplinary Science Algorithm Proposition Epistemic Aspects Element Relocation Interdisciplinary Activities 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abbott, B.P., et al. 2016. Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Physical Review Letters 116 (6): 061102. Scholar
  2. Burian, Richard M. 2005. The Epistemology of Development, Evolution, and Genetics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Collin, Finn. 2011. Science Studies as Naturalized Philosophy. Synthese Library Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht; New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Davidson, Donald. 1974. On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 47: 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species, Columbia Biological Series. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Giere, Ronald N. 1988. Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach, Science and Its Conceptual Foundations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ———. 2004. How Models are Used to Represent Reality. Philosophy of Science 71 (5): 742–752. Scholar
  8. Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2004. Mindless Statistics. The Journal of Socio-Economics 33: 587–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodwin, Richard M. 1967. A Growth Cycle. In Socialism, Capitalism and Economic Growth, ed. C.H. Feinstein, 54–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanson, Norwood Russell. 1958. Patterns of Discovery; An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science. Cambridge, UK: University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hau, Lene Vestergaard. 2011. Quantum Optics: Slowing Single Photons. Nature Photonics 5: 197–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hvidtfeldt, Rolf. 2017. Interdisciplinarity as Hybrid Modelling. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 48 (1): 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science: Foundations of the Unity of Science V. 2, No. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kvale, Steinar, and Svend Brinkmann. 2009. Interviews—Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Latour, Bruno. 1988. The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. McMullin, Ernan. 1985. Galilean Idealization. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16: 247–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mill, John Stuart. 1836. On the Definition of Political Economy. In Collected Works of John Stuart Mill: Essays on Economics and Society, ed. J.M. Robson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  19. Mirowski, Philip. 1989. More Heat Than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature’s Economics, Historical Perspectives on Modern Economics. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitchell, Sandra D. 2002. Integrative Pluralism. Biology and Philosophy 17 (1): 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morgan, Mary S. 2006. Economic Man as Model Man: Ideal Types, Idealization and Caricatures. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 28 (1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Popper, Karl. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Putnam, Hilary. 1975. The Meaning of “Meaning”. In Philosophical Papers, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Shapere, Dudley. 1966. Meaning and Scientific Change. In Mind and Cosmos; Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy, ed. Robert Garland Colodny, 41–85. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  25. Weisberg, Michael. 2013. Simulation and Similarity: Using Models to Understand the World. Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wimsatt, William. 1987. False Models as Means to Truer Theories. In Neutral Models in Biology, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki and Antoni Hoffman. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aalborg UniversityCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations