〈 Berger | Dillon 〉

Something that strikes me as silly is the sometimes widespread assumption in philosophy that we’re able to extract ontological commitments from every scientific theory by using the same rules in each case. Not even physical theories connect to phenomena in the same way.

Philosophers want to give a univocal account of interpretation, or explanation, or realism, or modeling; but the diversity of scientific practice resists this violently.

lot's of jargon.. think i get what you mean.. example?

Sure, so some people would want to say that to interpret a theory is to do X (where X never changes). But this ends up faring poorly when the rigid account of interpretation isn’t sufficiently fine grained to capture what’s going on in two different fields at the same time.