Scholarlink

<p>We consider the distinction between ‘qualified’ and ‘unqualified’ approaches introduced by Read (<CitationRef CitationID="CR41">2020a</CitationRef>) in the context of the dynamical/geometrical debate. We show that one fruitful way in which to understand this distinction is in terms of what one takes the kinematically possible models of a given theory to represent; moreover, we show that the qualified/unqualified distinction is applicable not only to the geometrical approach (which is the case considered by Read (<CitationRef CitationID="CR41">2020a</CitationRef>)), but also to the dynamical approach. Finally, having made these points, we connect them to other discussions of representation and of explanation in this corner of the literature.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Qualification and explanation in the dynamical/geometrical debate

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月15日

查看全文
  • Pablo Acuña,
  • James Read

摘要

We consider the distinction between ‘qualified’ and ‘unqualified’ approaches introduced by Read (2020a) in the context of the dynamical/geometrical debate. We show that one fruitful way in which to understand this distinction is in terms of what one takes the kinematically possible models of a given theory to represent; moreover, we show that the qualified/unqualified distinction is applicable not only to the geometrical approach (which is the case considered by Read (2020a)), but also to the dynamical approach. Finally, having made these points, we connect them to other discussions of representation and of explanation in this corner of the literature.