PhilSci Archive

Qualification and explanation in the dynamical/geometrical debate

Acuña, Pablo and Read, James (2025) Qualification and explanation in the dynamical/geometrical debate. [Preprint]

This is the latest version of this item.

[img] Text
qualification-accepted.pdf
Download (279kB)

Abstract

We consider the distinction between 'qualified' and 'unqualified' approaches introduced by Read (2020) 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 (2020)), 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.

Export/Citation: EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL
Social Networking:
Share |
Item Type: Preprint
Creators:
CreatorsEmailORCID
Acuña, Pablop.t.acunaluongo@uu.nl
Read, Jamesjames.read@philosophy.ox.ac.uk
Additional Information: Forthcoming in European Journal for Philosophy of Science.
Keywords: dynamical approach; kinematics; dynamics; explanation; representation; geometry
Subjects: Specific Sciences > Physics > Relativity Theory
Specific Sciences > Physics > Symmetries/Invariances
Depositing User: Dr. James Read
Date Deposited: 21 Dec 2025 19:23
Last Modified: 21 Dec 2025 19:23
Item ID: 27604
Subjects: Specific Sciences > Physics > Relativity Theory
Specific Sciences > Physics > Symmetries/Invariances
Date: 21 December 2025
URI: https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/27604

Available Versions of this Item

Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item