Abstract

The aim of this paper is to contribute to answering the question of whether it has any sense to talk about a tropological strategy in science. To do this it is necessary to scrutinize the diffe- rent relationships among models, metaphors and analogies. After ex- pounding some strong realist doctrines, and further moderate ones as well, about the truth value of metaphors in science, I proceed to un- dertake some precisions connected with certain current approaches on the relationships between analogies and models, and between models and metaphors. For instance, whether analogy is the ground of modelling, or if models constitute a certain form of metaphor. From the analysis of these questions I draw some detailed conclusions that allow me to claim that it is not justified to think about the existence of a deliberate tropological strategy in science.

Highlights

  • The aim of this paper is to contribute to answering the question

  • whether it has any sense to talk about a tropological strategy in science

  • necessary to scrutinize the different relationships among models

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The aim of this paper is to contribute to answering the question of whether it has any sense to talk about a tropological strategy in science. Dada su posición realista fuerte, Boyd considera, a modo de resumen, que el uso de metáforas en ciencia debe venir gobernado por las normas siguientes: Uno debería emplear una metáfora en ciencia sólo cuando hay buena evidencia de que existe una semejanza o analogía importante entre sus asuntos primario y secundario.

Objectives
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call