Scientific understanding in the Aharonov‐Bohm effect

Abstract

By appealing to resources found in the scientific understanding literature, I identify in what senses idealisations afford understanding in the context of the (magnetic) Aharonov‐Bohm effect. Three types of concepts of understanding are discussed: understanding‐what, which has to do with understanding a phenomenon; understanding‐with, which has to do with understanding a scientific theory; and understanding‐why, which has to do with the reason some phenomenon occurs. Consequently, I outline an account of understanding‐with that is suggested by the historical controversy surrounding the Aharonov‐Bohm effect.

Gradual de-idealisation and progress in political science: a case study

“…For this reason, it simplifies the modelled fragment of reality by focusing on certain features and relationships while ignoring others. This strategy provides the basis for achieving set cognitive goals, such as exposing the relationship between the analysed magnitude and its principal factor (Nowak, 2000b), representing key causal patterns (Potochnik, 2017), isolating core mechanisms and dependencies (Mäki, 1994), facilitating scientific exploration (Shech & Gelfert, 2019), facilitating explanation and understanding (Batterman, 2002;Bokulich, 2008;Shech, 2018Shech, , 2022, improving the mathematical tractability and efficacy of the model (McMullin, 1985), and building and developing theory (Rohwer & Rice, 2013;Ruetsche, 2011).…”