Bilimsel İdealizasyonlar

Dinçer Çevik

Bilimsel İdealizasyonlar

Öz

Belirli türden soyutlamalar, idealleştirmeler, bilinçli ihmaller, izolasyonlar bilim pratiğinde sıklıkla kullanılır. Kütle noktası, sürtünmesiz yüzey, hava boşluğu, ideal gaz, sonsuz büyük popülasyonlar, ölümsüz insanlar, tam rekabet, tam bilgili ekonomik bireyler, sıfır taşıma maliyeti, rasyonel bireyler vb. varsayımlara doğa bilimlerinde ve sosyal bilimler sıkılıkla başvurulur. Bu tür varsayımların ortak noktası belirli türden eksiklikler, mükemmelleştirmeler, çarpıtmalar ve benzeri özellikler içermesi ve bu anlamda araştırılan fenomenler ile ilgili ‘idealizasyonlar’ olarak iş görmeleridir. Bilimin temel amaçlarından ikisinin açıklama verme ve öndeyi türetimi olduğu düşünüldüğünde, idealizasyonlar şu soruyu beraberinde getirir: Eksiklikler, yanlışlıklar, bilinçli çarpıtmalar ve benzerlerini içeren varsayımlar olarak idealizasyonlar dünyayı açıklama, anlama ve onunla ilgili öndeyi türetiminde ve politika belirlemede nasıl iş görür? Bu soruyu yanıtlamanın yollarından birisi bahsi geçen epistemik stratejilerinin bilim ve bilim felsefesi literatüründe yer alma biçimlerini, yani onların sınıflandırılmalarını, benzerlik ve farklılıklarını analiz etmektir. Dolayısıyla bu makalede görece daha çok tartışılmış olan belli başlı idealizasyon türlerini analiz ederek bu konu bağlamında görece sınırlı kalmış olan Türkçe literatüre katkı vermeyi amaçlıyorum.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

Albert M. 2013, “From Unrealistic Assumptions to Economic Explanations: Robustness Analysis From a Deductivist Point of View”. Joint Discussion Paper Series in Economics 52/2013, Univ., Dep. of Business Administration & Economics, Marburg.
Alexandrova A. 2006, “Connecting rational choice models to the real World”. Philosophy of Social Science 36/2, 173-192.
Aydinonat N. E. 2018, “The diversity of models as a means to better explanations in economics.” Journal of Economic Methodology, 25/3, 237-251.
Aydinonat N. E. & Köksal E. 2019, “Explanatory value in context: the curious case of Hotelling’s location model”. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 26/5, 879-910.
Batterman R. W. 2002, The Devil in the Details: Asymptotic Reasoning in Explanation, eduction, and Emergence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Batterman R. W. 2011, “Emergence, Singularities, and Symmetry Breaking”. Foundations of Physics 41/6, 1031-1050.
Batterman R. W. 2005, “Critical Phenomena and Breaking Drops: Infinite Idealizations in Physics”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 36/2, 225-244.
Batterman, R. W. 2009, “Idealization and Modeling”. Synthese 169, 427-446. Boulding K. E. 1966, Economic Analysis. 4th ed. New York, NY: Harpers.

Caldwell, B. J. 1992, “Friedman's predictivist instrumentalism. A modification”. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology 10/1, 119-128.
Brzezinski J. & Nowak L. 1992, Idealization III: Approximation and Truth. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Cartwright N. 1983, How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford University Press.
Cartwright N. 1989, Nature’s Capacities and Their Measurement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Curtis E. B. & Lipsey R. G. 1989, “Product differentiation”. Eds. R. Schmalensee & R. Willig, Handbook of Industrial Organization. Amsterdam: North Holland, 723-768.
Çevik A. Dinçer. 2021, “Bilimsel Modellerin Sağlamlığı Üzerine.” Felsefe Arkivi- Archives of Philosophy 55, 49-65.
Elgin M. & Elliott Sober E. 2002, “Cartwright on Explanation and Idealization”. Erkenntnis 57/3, 441-450.
Frigg R. & Hartmann S, "Models in Science". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition). Kaynak: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/models-science Godfrey-Smith P. 2009, “Abstractions, Idealizations, and Evolutionary Biology”. Eds. A. Barberousse,
M. Morange, & T. Pradeu, Mapping the Future of Biology: Evolving Concepts and Theories (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 266), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 47-56.
Grüne-Yanoff T. 2013, “Genuineness Resolved: A Reply to Reiss’ Purported Paradox”. Journal of Economic Methodology 20/3, 255–261.
Hands D. W. 2017, “Hypothetical Pattern Explanations in Economic Science: Hayek’s Explanation of the Principle and Pattern Predictions Meets Contemporary Philosophy of Science”. Paper prepared for Symposium on the 35th Anniversary of Beyond Positivism For Research in History of Economic Thought and Methodology.
Hausman D. M. 1992, The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hausman D. M. 2013, “Paradox Postponed”. Journal of Economic Methodology, 20/3, 250-254.
Gibbard A. & Varian H. R. 1978, “Economic Models”. The Journal of Philosophy 75/11, 664-677.
Hindriks F. A. 2005, Unobservability, tractability and the battle of assumptions, Journal of Economic Methodology 12/3, 383-406.
Hindriks F. A. 2006, “Tractability assumptions and the Musgrave–Mäki typology”. Journal of Economic Methodology 13/4, 401-423.
Hoover K. 2009, “Milton Friedman's stance: The methodology of causal realism”. Ed. U. Mäki, The Methodology of Positive Economics: Reflections on the Milton Friedman Legacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 303-320.
Jones M. R. 2005, “Idealization and Abstraction: A Framework”. Eds. M. R Jones and N. Cartwright, Idealization XII: Correcting the Model (Poznań Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 86), Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 173-217.
Laymon R. 1985, “Idealizations and the Testing of Theories by Experimentation”. Eds. P. Achinstein & O. Hannaway, Observation, Experiment, and Hypothesis in Modern Physical Science, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 147–173.
Levins R. 1966, “The Strategy of Model Building in Population Biology”. American Scientist 54/4, 421- 431.
Lind H. 1993, “A Note on Fundamental Theory and Idealizations in Economics and Physics.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44/3, 493-503.
Lisciandra C. 2017, “Robustness Analysis and Tractability in Modeling”. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 7/1, 79-95.
Mäki U. 1992a, “Friedman and Realism”. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology 10, 171-95.
Mäki U. 1992c, “On the Method of Isolation in Economics”. Ed. C. Dilworth, Intelligibility in Science, Atlanta and Amsterdam: Rodopi, 319-354.
Mäki U. 1994b, “Isolation, Idealization and Truth in Economics”. Eds. B. Hamminga, and N.B. De
Marchi, Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities; Idealization VI: Idealization in Economics, Amsterdam; Atlanta: Rodopi, 147-168.
Mäki U. 2003a, “‘The Methodology of Positive Economics’ (1953) does Not Give Us the Methodology of Positive Economics". Journal of Economic Methodology 10, 495-505.
Mäki U. 2004a, "Realism and the Nature of Theory: A Lesson from J H Von Thünen for Economists and Geographers". Environment & Planning A, 36, 1719-3176.
Mäki U. 2004b, "Theoretical Isolation and Explanatory Progress: Transaction Cost Economics and the Dynamics of Dispute". Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28, 319-346.
Mäki U. 2009a, "Realistic Realism about Unrealistic Models". Edt. H. Kincaid, and D. Ross Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Economics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 68-98.
Mäki U. 2009b, "Unrealistic Assumptions and Unnecessary Confusions: Rereading and Rewriting F53 as a Realist Statement". Edt. U. Mäki The Methodology of Positive Economics. Reflections on the Milton Friedman Legacy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 90-116.
Mäki U. 2020, “Puzzled by Idealizations and Understanding Their Functions”. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 50(3): 215-237.
McMullin E. 1985, “Galilean Idealization”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16, 247–273.
Morrison M. 2005, “Approximating the real: the role of idealizations in physical theory”. Eds. N. Cartwright, & M. R. Jones Idealization XII: Correcting the model: idealization and abstraction in the sciences. Cambridge, 145-171.
Musgrave A. 1981, ‘‘‘Unrealistic assumptions’ in economic theory: the F-twist untwisted”. Kyklos 34, 377-387.
Nola R. 2004, “Pendula, models, constructivism and reality”. Science & Education 13, 349-377.
Nowak L. 1972, “Laws of Science, Theories, Measuremen”. Philosophy of Science 39/4, 533-548.
Nowak L. 1980, The Structure of Idealization: Towards a Systematic Interpretation of the Marxian Idea of Science. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Nowak L. 1989, “The Stage Method, Idealization, and the Nature of Dialectics. Philosophy of the Social Sciences”. 19/1, 81-87.
Reiss J. 2012, “The Explanation Paradox”. Journal of Economic Methodology 19/1, 43-62.
Reutlinger A., D. Hangleiter & S. Hartmann 2018, “Understanding with (Toy) Models”. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69/4, 1069-1099.
Rice C. C. 2015, “Moving Beyond Causes: Optimality Models and Scientific Explanation”. Noûs, 49/3, 589-615.
Rice C. C. 2019, “Models Don’t Decompose That Way: A Holistic View of Idealized Models”. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 70/1, 179-208.
Rodrik D. 2015, Economics Rules: Why Economics Works, When it Fails, and How to Tell the Difference. United States of America and United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Rohwer Y. & Rice C. 2013, “Hypothetical Pattern Idealization and Explanatory Models”. Philosophy of Science 80, 334-355.
Rol M. 2008, “Idealizastion, abstraction, and the policy relevance of economic theories”. Journal of Economic Methodology 15/1, 69-97.
Strevens M. 2009, Depth: An Account of Scientific Explanation. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sugden R. 2009, “Credible Worlds, Capacities and Mechanisms”. Erkenttnis 670, 3-27.
Thoma J. 2012, On the Robustness of Economic Models. Yayımlanmamış Master Tezi, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam.
Veit W. 2020, “Model Pluralism”. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 50/2, 91-114.
Wayne A. 2011, “Expanding the Scope of Explanatory Idealization”. Philosophy of Science 78/5, 830- 841.
Weisberg M. 2008, “Three Kinds of Idealization”. The Journal of Philosophy 104/12, 639-659.
Wimsatt W. 2007, Re-engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings: Piecewise Approximations of Reality. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
Woodward J. 2000, “Explanation and Invariance in the Special Sciences”. The British Journal British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51, 197-254

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Türkçe

Konular

Düşünce Tarihi, Eskiçağ Felsefesi

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Dinçer Çevik
0000-0001-5897-7381
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi

30 Haziran 2022

Gönderilme Tarihi

7 Aralık 2021

Kabul Tarihi

28 Nisan 2022

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2022 Cilt: 12

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA24MF69BC

Kaynak Göster

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Çevik, D. (2022). Bilimsel İdealizasyonlar. Akdeniz İnsani Bilimler Dergisi, 12, 11-21. https://izlik.org/JA24MF69BC

AMA

1.Çevik D. Bilimsel İdealizasyonlar. MJH. 2022;12:11-21. https://izlik.org/JA24MF69BC

Chicago

Çevik, Dinçer. 2022. “Bilimsel İdealizasyonlar”. Akdeniz İnsani Bilimler Dergisi 12 (Haziran): 11-21. https://izlik.org/JA24MF69BC.

EndNote

Çevik D (01 Haziran 2022) Bilimsel İdealizasyonlar. Akdeniz İnsani Bilimler Dergisi 12 11–21.

IEEE

[1]D. Çevik, “Bilimsel İdealizasyonlar”, MJH, c. 12, ss. 11–21, Haz. 2022, [çevrimiçi]. Erişim adresi: https://izlik.org/JA24MF69BC

ISNAD

Çevik, Dinçer. “Bilimsel İdealizasyonlar”. Akdeniz İnsani Bilimler Dergisi 12 (01 Haziran 2022): 11-21. https://izlik.org/JA24MF69BC.

JAMA

1.Çevik D. Bilimsel İdealizasyonlar. MJH. 2022;12:11–21.

MLA

Çevik, Dinçer. “Bilimsel İdealizasyonlar”. Akdeniz İnsani Bilimler Dergisi, c. 12, Haziran 2022, ss. 11-21, https://izlik.org/JA24MF69BC.

Vancouver

1.Dinçer Çevik. Bilimsel İdealizasyonlar. MJH [Internet]. 01 Haziran 2022;12:11-2. Erişim adresi: https://izlik.org/JA24MF69BC

	Akdeniz İnsani Bilimler Dergisi (MJH) CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 lisansı altında yayınlanmaktadır.
	MJH Açık Erişim bir dergidir ve yayımladığı içeriği doğrudan açık erişime sunar.