Abstract :
Many standard philosophical accounts of scientific practice fail to distinguish between
modeling and other types of theory construction. This failure is unfortunate because
there are important contrasts among the goals, procedures, and representations
employed by modelers and other kinds of theorists. We can see some of these differences
intuitively when we reflect on the methods of theorists such as Vito Volterra and Linus
Pauling on the one hand, and Charles Darwin and Dimitri Mendeleev on the other.
Much of Volterra’s and Pauling’s work involved modeling; much of Darwin’s and
Mendeleev’s did not. In order to capture this distinction, I consider two examples
of theory construction in detail: Volterra’s treatment of post-WWI fishery dynamics
and Mendeleev’s construction of the periodic system. I argue that modeling can
be distinguished from other forms of theorizing by the procedures modelers use to
represent and to study real-world phenomena: indirect representation and analysis.
This differentiation between modelers and non-modelers is one component of the larger
project of understanding the practice of modeling, its distinctive features, and the
strategies of abstraction and idealization it employs.