In last century, the historians of physics improved their historical accounts till up to obtain be interpretative accounts. The two main interpretative accounts have posed fundamental problems. Koyré: whether in theoretical physics mathematics is also idealistic in nature; Kuhn: whether and how the notions of paradigm, anomaly, crisis, scientific revolution and incommensurability are essential for a deep understanding of the history of physics. For their part, the philosophers of science have suggested a program for unifying the entire science; hence, they attributed to the concept of reduction between two theories insisting on the same field of phenomena a crucial role. A great debate tried to define this notion of reduction. Since longtime a particular, but more accurate notion of reduction has been applied by physicists: the reduction through a limit of a fundamental parameter of the reducing theory. But Berry, Rohrlich and Batterman pointed out that this reduction is impossible when the limit is singular, as it occurs in the cases of physical optics and geometric optics, statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, etc. Hence, to represent an entire theory as the final point of a singular limit operation applies idealistic mathematics more than what was suggested by Koyré, i.e. to represent a physical law through an idealistic mathematical notion. In addition, a new mathematics—the constructive one—characterizes a singular limit as undecidable. Hence, a singular limit between two theories actually represents a difference between two different kinds of mathematics. This particular situation suggests a mathematical definition of the notion of incommensurability. As a consequence of the resulting incommensurability among many couples of theories the foundations of physical theories are pluralist, not only in both epistemological and ontological senses, but also in a mathematical sense. Hence, the traditional vision of the historical growth of theoretical physics as a series of theories as concentric circles, each theory being compatible with the previous ones is denied; since longtime the history of physics is developing along a plurilinear path.
KeywordsNew Historiography of PhysicsReduction between Two Scientific TheoriesThe Debate on the Definition of ReductionLimit ReductionIncommensurability
Aberth, O. (1980). Computable Analysis. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill.
Anderson, P. W. (1972). More Is Different. Science, 177, 393-396. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.177.4047.393
Balzer, W., Moulines, C. U., & Sneed, J. D. (1986). An Architectonics of Science. Dordrecht: Reidel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3765-9
Batterman, R. (1995). Theories between Theories: Asymptotic Limiting Intertheoretic Relations. Synthese, 103, 171-201. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01090047
Batterman, R. (2005). The Tyranny of Scales. In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics (pp. 255-286). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195392043.013.0008
Batterman, R. (2016). Intertheory Relation in Physics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosoph. https://plato.stanford.edu/search/r?entry=/entries/physics-interrelate/&page= 1&total_hits=2688&pagesize=10&archive=None&rank=1&query=inter%20theory%20in%20physics
Batterman, R. (2018). Autonomy of Theories: An Explanatory Problem. Nous, 52, 858-873. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12191
Batterman, R. W. (2002). The Devil in the Details. Oxford: Oxford U.P. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195146476.001.0001
Berry, M. V. (1981). Quantizing a Classically Ergodic System: Sinai’s Billiard and the KKR Method. Annals of Physics, 131, 163-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(81)90189-5
Berry, M. V. (1994). Asymptotic, Singularities and the Reduction of Theories. In D. Prawitz et al. (Eds.), Logic Methodology and Philosophy of Science IX (pp. 597-607). New York: Elsevier.
Berry, M. V. (2002). Singular Limits. Physics Today, 55, 10-11. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1485555
Bokulich, A. (2008). Re-Examining the Quantum-Classical Relations. Beyond Reductionism ad Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.
Bunge, M. (1982). Is Chemistry a Branch of Physics? Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie/Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 13, 209-223. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01801556
Butterfield, J. (2011). Emergence, Reduction and Supervenience: A Varied Landscape, Found. Physics, 41, 920-959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-011-9549-0
Carnap, R. (1934). The Unity of Science. London: Kegan.
Crowther, K. (2020). What Is the Point of Reduction in Science? Erkenntnis, 85, 1437-1460.
Pluralist Foundations
Plurilinear History
Drago, A. (1986). Relevance of Constructive Mathematics to Theoretical Physics. In E. Agazzi et al. (Eds.), Logica e Filosofia della Scienza, oggi (Vol. IL, pp. 267-272). Bologna: CLUEB.
Drago, A. (1987). Limit-Principles in Theoretical Physics and Constructive Mathematics, Comrn. to VIII Congress on Logic, Methodology and Phil. Sci., Moscow, 5, pt. 2, 89-91.
Drago, A. (1991). The Alternative Content of Thermodynamics: Constructive Mathernatics and Problematic Organization of the Theory. In K. Martinas, L. Ropolyi, & P. Szegedi (Eds.), Thermodynamics: History and Philosophy. Facts, Trend, Debates (pp. 329-345). Singapore: World Scientific.
Drago, A. (2012). Pluralism in Logic. The Square of Opposition, Leibniz’s Principle and Markov’s Principle. In J.-Y. Béziau, & D. Jacquette (Eds.), Around and beyond the Square of Opposition (pp. 175-189). Basel: Birckhaueser. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-0379-3_12
Drago, A. (2013). The Relationship between Physics and Mathematics in the XlXth Century: The Disregarded Birth of a Foundational Pluralism. In E. Barbin, & R. Pisano (Eds.), The Dialectic Relations between Physics and Mathematics in the XIXth Century (pp. 159-179). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5380-8_8
Drago, A. (2017). Koyré’s Revolutionary Role in the Historiography of Science. In R. Pisano, J. Agassi, & D. Drozdova (Eds.), Hypotheses and Perspectives in the History and Philosophy of Science. Homage to Alexandre Koyré 1892-1964 (pp. 123-141). Berlin: Springer.
Drago, A. (2020). A New Definition of Reduction between Two Scientific Theories: No Reduction of Chemistry to Quantum Mechanics. Foundations of Chemistry, 22, 421-445.
Feyerabend, P. K. (1962). Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism. In H. Feigl, & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Scientific Explanation, Space and Time (pp. 28-97). Minneapolis, MN: U. Minnesota P.
Feyerabend, P. K. (1977). Changing Patterns of Reconstruction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 28, 351–382. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/28.4.351
Fodor, J. A. (1974). Special Sciences (or: the Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis). Synthese, 28, 97-115. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485230
Galilei, G. (1638). Discorsi e dimostrazioni su due nuove scienze, Leida 1638. [Engl. Traslations (1974). Two New Sciences, Madison: Wsconsin U.P.]
Goldstein, H. (1980). Classical Mechanics. New York: Addison Wesley.
Gutschmidt, R. (2014). Reduction and the Neighborhood of Theories: A New Approach to the Intertheoretic Relations of Physics. Journal of General Philosophy of Science, 45, 49-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-014-9240-1
Hendtlass, M. (2012). Fixed Point Theorems in Constructive Mathematics. Journal of Logic and Analysis, 4, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.4115/jla.2012.4.10
Hilbert, D. (1900). Gottinger Nachrichten, 253-297. [Engl. Transl. (1902). Mathematical Problems in Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 8, 437-439]. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9904-1902-00923-3
Hofweber, T. (2000). Proof-Theoretic Reduction as a Philosopher’s Tool. Erkenntnis, 53, 127-146. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005670319780
Kim, J. (1999). Making Sense of Emergence. Philosophical Studies, 95, 3-36. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004563122154
Kogbetlianz, F. G. (1968). Fundamentals of Mathematics from an Advanced Point of View (App. 2). New York: Gordon & Breach.
Koyré, A. (1986). Etudes Galiléennes. Paris: Hermann.
Kuhn, T. S. (1969). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: Chicago U.P.
Kuhn, T. S. (1978). Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894-1912. Chicago, IL: Chicago U.P.
Landsman, N. P. (2013). Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in Quantum Systems: Emergency or Reduction? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44, 379-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2013.07.003
Lévy, M. (1979). Les rélations entre chimie et physique et le problème de la reduction. Epistemologia, 11, 337-370.
Lombardi, O., & Labarca, M. (2005). The Ontological Autonomy of the Chemical World. Foundations of Chemistry, 7, 125-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-004-0980-6
Mach, E. (1896). Principles of the Theory of Heat. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4622-4
Nagel E. (1961). The Structure of Science. London: Routledge and Kegan.
Niebergall, K.-G. (2002). Structuralism, Model Theory and Reduction. Synthese, 130, 135-162. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013883427641
Norton, J. D. (2012). Approximation and Idealization: Why the Difference Matters. Philosophy of Science, 79, 207-232. https://doi.org/10.1086/664746
Oppenheim, P., & Putnam, H. (1958). Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis. In H. Feigl, M. Scriven, & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Concepts Theories and the Mind-Body Problem (pp. 3-36). Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2.
Palacios, P. (2018). Had We But World Enough, and Time... But We Don’t!: Justifying the Thermodynamic and Infinite-Time Limits in Statistical Mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 48, 526-541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-018-0165-0
Primas, H. (1988). Emergence in the Exact Sciences. Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica, 91, 82-98.
Rohrlich, F. (1988). Pluralistic Ontology and Theory Reduction in Physical Sciences. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 39, 295-312. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/39.3.295
Rohrlich, F. (1989). The Logic of Reduction. The Case of Gravitation. Foundations of Physics, 19, 1151-1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00731877
Rohrlich, F. (1990). There Is Good Physics in Theory Reduction. Foundations of Physics, 20, 1399-1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01883494
Rueger, A. (2006). Functional Reduction and Emergence in the Physical Sciences. Synthese, 151, 335-345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9027-y
Sarkar, S. (2015). Nagel on Reduction. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 53, 43-56.
Schaffner, K. (1967). Approach to Reduction. Philosophy of Science, 34, 137-147. https://doi.org/10.1086/288137
Schaffner, K. (2006). Reduction: The Cheshire Cat Problem and a Return to Roots. Synthese, 151, 377-402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9031-2
Sklar, L. (1967). Types of Inter-Theoretic Reduction. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 18, 109-124. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/18.2.109
Sklar, L. (2015). Philosophy of Statistical Mechanics. In N. E. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/statphys-statmech/#6
Sober, E. (1999). The Multiple Realizability Argument against Reductionism. Philosophy of Science, 66, 342-354. https://doi.org/10.1086/392754
Uffink, J. (2004). Boltzmann’s Work in Statistical Physics. In N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/statphys-Boltzmann/
van Riel, R. (2014). The Concept of Reduction. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04162-9
van Riel, R., & van Gulick, R. (2019). Scientific Reduction. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reduction/
Wayne, A. (2012). Emergence and Singular Limits. Synthese, 184, 341-356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9817-0
Wimsatt, W. C. (2006). Reductionism and Its Heuristics: Making Methodological Reductionism Honest. Synthese, 151, 445-475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9017-0