How the Laws of Physics Lie
Cartwright (Nancy)
This Page provides (where held) the Abstract of the above Book and those of all the Papers contained in it.
Colour-ConventionsDisclaimerBooks / Papers Citing this BookNotes Citing this Book


Amazon Cover Blurb

  1. In this sequence of philosophical essays about natural science, Nancy Cartwright argues that fundamental explanatory laws, the deepest and most admired successes of modern physics, do not in fact describe the regularities that exist in nature. Yet she is not ‘anti-realist'. Rather, she draws a novel distinction, arguing that theoretical entities, and the complex and localized laws that describe them, can be interpreted realistically, but that the simple unifying laws of basic theory cannot.
  2. The issues raised are very important and highly controversial ... I believe the book to be of importance in inviting philosophers to take a new look at the way physics is actually done, and what their reaction to that practice might be.
    → M. L. G. Redhead, Philosophical Quarterly
  3. Nancy Cartwright is Professor Philosophy, London School of Economics.

Amazon Customer Review 1 (Very Negative)
  1. There seems to be a few rather basic assumptions that are made in the book that are held to be "obvious":
  2. For any set of phenomena there is multiple explanations all as "good" as each other. If one takes as the criteria that the predictions match experiment and also don't predict something that doesn't match experiment then this statement is clearly false. For people who claim it is true, I give this challenge, come up with a consistent theory of the four forces that predict the ALL experimental data that has been built up over the last 400 odd years. So far nobody has managed even one let alone "multiple".
  3. That somehow all these different branches have no theoretical linkage. So we have physics of lasers somehow being "special" when in fact it is simply a specific case of quantum mechanics1. This like claiming that Pythagoras's theorem doesn't hold because when we look at reality each triangle has a different, specific hypotenuse.
  4. That open problems somehow mean there is a fundamental problem with Physics. This is not a million miles away from the religious people's critique of evolution, just there are open problems means it must be false. Just like religion, philosophical critiques of science skim round the fact that science has been spectacularly successful over the last 400 years and the other approaches have been abject failures. Philosophers in particular have either been wrong or not made any statements that could face the test of reality.
  5. There is also the assumption that there is some sinister reason certain problems aren't being tackled. The reality in most cases is a mix of that problem being very hard or irrelevant. An example is the measurement problem in quantum mechanics2 - it is simply a hard problem to solve, quite a few very bright people have made no headway and so people work where it is possible to make progress and one will notice it is established people who work on these topics. As a side note it is interesting that Cartwright fails to deal with the very serious and genuine issues of data analysis and statistical methods in experiment design given this is apparently one of her current areas of interest.
  6. The fact there are multiple explanations within a theory is somehow a sign of weakness. In fact we have two cases to deal with; either the two theories under all circumstances predict exactly the same result - in this case they are not really different explanations, the S-matrix and path integral approach in Quantum Field Theory would be an example of this - or they under circumstances they predict different results in which case an experiment can pick one vs the other.
  7. I can't understand why philosophers find these concepts so hard. The only reason I can think of - and this is based on personal experience - is they simply aren't terribly bright3.

Amazon Customer Review 2 (Less Negative)
  1. The following is in danger of simply becoming a reply to a couple of ill-natured (dare I say ill-informed?) previous reviewers. However, here goes: Nancy Cartwright's How The Laws of Physics Lie is devoted to expounding a philosophy of how scientific laws have to trade-off explanatory generality for truthlikeness. In a nutshell, that's the thesis: you can have truthlikeness or you can have generality but it's hard to have both. Now, as it happens I don't buy the thesis of this book either but it deserves better and more insightful treatment than it's had in these pages thus far. A few things to bear in mind before tackling this book:
  2. How the Laws of Physics Lie is devoted to expounding a doctrine about science that Cartwright called local realism, which in part extols the virtues of practical experimentation over high-level (usually philosophical) theorising. This book is therefore not an attack on the rationality or success of scientific practice or scientific methodology. Likewise, Cartwright is not developing a new wrinkle on Kuhn-style anti-rationalism or relativism about science, (not that Kuhn ever claimed to be an anti-rationalist or a relativist). If you can't tell the difference between the view that Cartwright is defending here and the views of Thomas Kuhn (or Paul Feyerabend), I would start reading a few books. If I might make a suggestion: one useful book for seeing where Cartwright is coming from is "Hacking (Ian) - Representing and Intervening - Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science".
  3. This next may come as a bit of a surprise but philosophers have been offering articulated and well-developed statements of scientific realist positions for decades now. See for example Stathis Psillos's 'Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth' or (although it's now getting on a bit) J.C.C. Smart's 'Scientific Realism'. (BTW, Popper's methodology was a great achievement in its day but the cracks have been showing for a few decades now.)
  4. I reckon it's probably a good idea to know a little bit about a book's subject-matter before pontificating about it. (But hey, what do I know?)

  1. Causal Laws and Effective Strategies – 21
  2. The Truth Doesn't Explain Much – 44
  3. Do the Laws of Physics State the Facts? – 54
  4. The Reality of Causes in a World of Instrumental Laws – 74
  5. When Explanation Leads to Inference – 87
  6. For Phenomenological Laws – 100
  7. Fitting Facts to Equations – 128
  8. The Simulacrum Account of Explanation – 143
  9. How the Measurement Problem is an Artefact of the Mathematics – 163
    Author Index – 217
    Subject Index – 219

In-Page Footnotes ("Cartwright (Nancy) - How the Laws of Physics Lie")

Footnote 3: Note – this isn’t my view! TT.


OUP Oxford; First Edition edition (9 Jun 1983)

"Cartwright (Nancy) - How the Laws of Physics Lie"

Source: Cartwright - How the Laws of Physics Lie

Introduction (Extracted)
  1. Philosophers distinguish phenomenological from theoretical laws. Phenomenological laws are about appearances; theoretical ones are about the reality behind the appearances. The distinction is rooted in epistemology. Phenomenological laws are about things which we can at least in principle observe directly, whereas theoretical laws can be known only by indirect inference. Normally for philosophers 'phenomenological' and `theoretical' mark the distinction between the observable and the unobservable.
  2. Physicists also use the terms ‘theoretical' and 'phenomenological'. But their usage makes a different distinction. Physicists contrast ‘phenomenological' with ‘fundamental'. For example, Pergamon Press's Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Physics says, ‘A phenomenological theory relates observed phenomena by postulating certain equations but does not enquire too deeply into their fundamental significance.'
  3. The dictionary mentions observed phenomena. But do not be misled. These phenomenological equations are not about direct observables that contrast with the theoretical entities of the philosopher.
    [ … snip … ]
  4. The divide between theoretical and phenomenological commonly separates realists from anti-realists. I argue in these essays for a kind of anti-realism, and typically it is an anti-realism that accepts the phenomenological and rejects the theoretical. But it is not theory versus observation that I reject. Rather it is the theoretical as opposed to the phenomenological. In modern physics, and I think in other exact sciences as well, phenomenological laws are meant to describe, and they often succeed reasonably well. But fundamental equations are meant to explain, and paradoxically enough the cost of explanatory power is descriptive adequacy. Really powerful explanatory laws of the sort found in theoretical physics do not state the truth.
  5. I begin from the assumption that we have an immense number of very highly confirmed phenomenological laws. Spectra-physics Incorporated continuously runs a quarter of a million dollars' worth of lasers to death to test their performance characteristics. Nothing could be better confirmation than that. But how do the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics1, which are supposed to explain the detailed behaviour of lasers, get their confirmation? Only indirectly, by their ability to give true accounts of lasers, or of benzene rings, or of electron diffraction patterns. I will argue that the accounts they give are generally not true, patently not true by the same practical standards that admit an indefinite number of commonplace phenomenological laws. We have detailed expertise for testing the claim of physics about what happens in concrete situations. When we look to the real implications of our fundamental laws, they do not meet these ordinary standards. Realists are inclined to believe that if theoretical laws are false and inaccurate, then phenomenological laws are more so. I urge just the reverse. When it comes to the test, fundamental laws are far worse off than the phenomenological laws they are supposed to explain.
  6. The essays collected in this volume may be grouped around three different but interrelated arguments for this paradoxical conclusion.
    1. The manifest explanatory power of fundamental laws does not argue for their truth.
    2. In fact the way they are used in explanation argues for their falsehood. We explain by ceteris paribus laws, by composition of causes, and by approximations that improve on what the fundamental laws dictate. In all of these cases the fundamental laws patently do not get the facts right.
    3. The appearance of truth comes from a bad model of explanation, a model that ties laws directly to reality. As an alternative to the conventional picture I propose a simulacrum account of explanation. The route from theory to reality is from theory to model, and then from model to phenomenological law. The phenomenological laws are indeed true of the objects in reality — or might be; but the fundamental laws are true only of objects in the model.

  1. I will argue that the falsehood of fundamental laws is a consequence of their great explanatory power. This is the exact opposite of what is assumed by a well-known and widely discussed argument form—inference to the best explanation. The basic idea of this argument is: if a hypothesis explains a sufficiently wide variety of phenomena well enough, we can infer that the hypothesis is true. Advocates of this argument form may disagree about what counts as well enough, or how much variety is necessary. But they all think that explanatory power, far from being at odds with truth, leads us to it. My first line of argument in these essays denies that explanation is a guide to truth.
  2. Numerous traditional philosophical positions bar inferences to best explanations. Scepticism, idealism, and positivism are examples. But the most powerful argument I know is found in "Duhem (Pierre) - The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory", reformulated in a particularly pointed way by Bas van Fraassen in his recent book "Van Fraassen (Bas) - The Scientific Image". Van Fraassen asks, what has explanatory power to do with truth? He offers more a challenge than an argument: show exactly what about the explanatory relationship tends to guarantee that if x explains y and y is true, then x should be true as well. This challenge has an answer in the case of causal explanation, but only in the case of causal explanation. That is my thesis in ‘When Explanation Leads to Inference'. Suppose we describe the concrete causal process by which a phenomenon is brought about. That kind of explanation succeeds only if the process described actually occurs. To the extent that we find the causal explanation acceptable, we must believe in the causes described.
    [ … snip … ]

  1. Debate between realists and non-realists has been going on for a long time. Does the outcome have any practical consequence? I think it does. The last essay in this volume provides one example. I have argued that many abstract concepts in physics play merely an organizing role and do not seem to represent genuine properties. Unitarity has the earmarks of being just such a concept in quantum mechanics2.
  2. Unitarity is a property of operators. Those operators that are unitary represent motions that are indeterministic. Unitarity plays no causal role in the theory; nothing else about its use argues for interpreting it as a real property either. Yet there is a tendency to think of it not only as a mathematical characteristic of operators, but also as a genuine property of the situations represented by the operators. This, I claim, is the source of the notorious measurement problem in quantum mechanics3. Unitarity marks no real property in quantum theory4, and if we do not suppose that it must do so we have no interesting philosophical problem about measurement.
  3. Essay 9 is concerned exclusively with the measurement problem, and not with the other conceptual difficulty in quantum mechanics5 that philosophers commonly discuss, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. These two problems tend to sit at opposite ends of a balance: philosophical treatments that offer hope for solving one usually fare badly with the other. This is certainly the case with the programme I propose. If it should work, it would at best eliminate the measurement problem, which I believe to be a pseudo-problem. But it would have nothing to say regarding the very perplexing facts about locality brought out by the EPR paradox.

  1. The picture of science that I present in these essays lacks the purity of positivism. It is a jumble of unobservable entities, t1$usnl processes, and phenomenological laws. But it shares one deep positivist conviction: there is no better reality besides the reality we have to hand. In the second sentence of this introduction I characterized the distinction between phenomenological and theoretical laws: phenomenological laws are about appearances; theoretical ones about the reality behind the appearances. That is the distinction I reject.
  2. Richard Feynmann talks about explaining in physics as fitting phenomena into ‘the patterns of nature'. But where are the patterns? Things happen in nature. Often they happen in regular ways when the circumstances are similar; the same kinds of causal processes recur; there are analogies between what happens in some situations and what happens in others. As Duhem suggests, what happens may even be organized into natural kinds6 in a way that makes prediction easy for us (see the last section of ‘When Explanation Leads to Inference'). But there is only what happens, and what we say about it. Nature tends to a wild profusion, which our thinking does not wholly confine.
  3. The metaphysical picture that underlies these essays is an Aristotelean belief in the richness and variety of the concrete and particular. Things are made to look the same only when we fail to examine them too closely. Pierre Duhem distinguished two kinds of thinkers: the deep but narrow minds of the French, and the broad but shallow minds of the English. The French mind sees things in an elegant, unified way. It takes Newton's three laws of motion and turns them into the beautiful, abstract mathematics of Lagrangian mechanics. The English mind, says Duhem, is an exact contrast. It engineers bits of gears, and pulleys, and keeps the strings from tangling up. It holds a thousand different details all at once, without imposing much abstract order or organization. The difference between the realist and me is almost theological. The realist thinks that the creator of the universe worked like a French mathematician. But I think that God has the untidy mind of the English.

    The last essay on quantum mechanics7 shows how anti-realism can be put to work. The first essay defends causes. The principal arguments for theoretical entities and against theoretical laws are in the middle essays. Although the essays argue in favour of theoretical entities and against theoretical laws, the main emphasis is on the latter theme. This book is a complement, I think, to the fine discussions of representation, experimentation, and creation of phenomena in "Hacking (Ian) - Representing and Intervening - Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science". Hacking provides a wealth of examples which show how new entities are admitted to physics. Essay 6 here has some detailed examples and many equations that may not be of interest to the reader with pure philosophic concerns; but the general point of the examples can be gleaned by reading the introductory sections. Although Essay 9 is about quantum mechanics8, it is not technical and readers without expert knowledge will be able to follow the argument.

Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2020
  2. Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)

© Theo Todman, June 2007 - May 2020. Please address any comments on this page to File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this Page Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page Return to Theo Todman's Home Page