Experiment, Time and Theory Faculty of Arts Thesis for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy at the University of Antwerp to be defended by Jan Potters Experiment, Time and Theory On the Scientific Exploration of the Unobservable Antwerp 2019 Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Bert Leuridan Faculteit Letteren & Wijsbegeerte Verhandeling neergelegd voor de graad van Doctor in de Wijsbegeerte Aan de Universiteit Antwerpen Verdedigd door Jan Potters Experiment, Tijd en Theorie Over de wetenschappelijke exploratie van het onobserveerbare Antwerpen 2019 Promotor: Prof. Dr. Bert Leuridan L'anthropologie est l`apour nous le rappeler, le passage du temps peut s'interpr´eterde multiples fa¸cons,comme cycle ou comme d´ecadence, comme chute ou comme instabilit´e,comme retour ou comme pr´esence continu´ee.Appelons temporalit´e l'interpr´etationde ce passage pour bien la distinguer du temps. Les modernes ont pour particularit´ede comprendre le temps qui passe comme s'il abolissait r´eellement le pass´e derri`ere lui. Ils se prennent tous pour Attilla derri`ere qui l'herbe ne repoussait plus. Ils ne se sentent pas ´eloign´esdu Moyen Age^ par un certain nombre de si`ecles,mais s´epar´esde lui par des r´evolutionscoperniciennes, des coupures ´epist´emologiques, des ruptures ´epist´emiquesqui sont tellement radicales que plus rien ne survit en eux de ce pass´e{ que plus rien ne doit survivre en eux de ce pass´e. Nous n'avons jamais et´ e´ modernes Bruno Latour Contents Contents v Acknowledgments vii Introduction 1 1 Manipulation and the Realist Anthropology 3 1.1 Introduction . .3 1.2 Hacking's Anthropological Origin-Myth . .4 1.3 Realism and its arguments . .6 1.3.1 Putnam's No Miracles-Argument . .6 1.3.2 The Underdetermination Argument . 10 1.3.3 Van Fraassen and Inference to the Best Explanation . 12 1.3.4 Laudan and the Pessimistic Meta-Induction . 15 1.3.5 Scientific Realism: Anthropology, Strategy and Hypothesis . 18 1.4 Manipulability and the Realist Strategy . 19 1.4.1 Ian Hacking: Manipulating the Unobservable . 19 1.4.2 Nancy Cartwright: Constructing Nomological Machines . 22 1.4.3 Manipulability and the Realism-Issue . 28 1.5 Manipulability and its Relation to Theory . 32 1.5.1 Margaret Morrison: Manipulability and Theory . 33 1.5.2 Michela Massimi: Manipulability and Phenomena . 34 1.5.3 Theodore Arabatzis: Manipulability and History . 36 1.6 Research Question . 37 2 Experiment and the Electron's Velocity-Dependence of Mass 41 2.1 Introduction . 41 2.2 Kaufmann's First Experiments and the Electromagnetic Electron . 43 2.3 Lorentz's Deformable Electron and the Principle of Relativity . 57 2.4 Kaufmann's Final Run of Experiments . 66 2.5 Early Relativistic Responses to Kaufmann's Experiments . 71 2.6 Discussing Kaufmann's Experimental Set-Up . 78 2.7 Planck's Dynamics: Quanta, Relativity and the Electron . 93 2.8 Einstein and von Laue on the Electron . 107 2.9 Investigating the Electron's Dynamics . 125 3 Experiment and the State of Magnetization of Superconductors 129 3.1 Introduction . 129 3.2 Lippmann's Theorem, Perfect Conductors and Frozen In Fields . 132 v Contents 3.3 Kamerlingh Onnes and Tuyn's Experiments . 134 3.4 Overturning the Classical Electron . 143 3.5 Experiment and Superconducting Phenomena . 152 3.6 Superconductors and Phenomenological Theories . 170 3.7 Superconductors, Diamagnetism and Experiment . 183 3.8 Investigating the State of Magnetization . 193 4 Manipulation and an Epistemology of Exploration 197 4.1 Introduction . 197 4.2 Exploration in Experimentation and Modeling . 199 4.2.1 Steinle and Exploratory Experimentation . 199 4.2.2 Massimi and Exploratory Modeling . 201 4.2.3 Uljana Feest and the Process of Stabilization . 203 4.3 Stabilization, Exploration and Experimental Inferences . 206 4.3.1 Exploration and the Electron's Velocity-Dependent Mass . 208 4.3.2 Exploration and Superconductivity's State of Magnetization . 218 4.3.3 Manipulability, Exploration and Stabilization . 229 4.3.4 Exploration and the Realist Anthropology . 235 Conclusion 241 Appendix A Experimental Inferences and Interpretations 251 Bibliography 255 Abstract 275 vi Acknowledgments According to the views elaborated in this dissertation, research is to be character- ized as exploration. Such exploration happens in a space of possibilities, and the subject of this dissertation concerns the epistemological factors that shape and con- strain this space. But, of course, research does not happen in an epistemological vacuum. Material and social factors equally well play an important role in shaping, constraining and sustaining the way in which research is carried out. While I have not been able, unfortunately, to pay much attention to these factors in what is to follow, I cannot let those that have sustained my research go unnoticed. The first person who I would like to thank is my supervisor, Bert Leuridan. Over the years, he has given me space to explore and elaborate my own thoughts, while sustaining me at every moment by means of comments, remarks, criticism and support. My work has improved tremendeously thanks to him, and I am sure that without his clear and analytic eye this dissertation would have been at least twice as long without containing more information. Besides Bert, there are many other wonderful people in the Antwerp philosophy department that have made my time there a pleasure. I would like to thank them not only for providing an intellectually stimulating environment, but equally well for all the pleasant, non-philosophical lunch breaks we had. My gratitude goes out to Sydney, Thomas, Raoul, Marco, Jasper, Farid, Jan, Ludger, Karim, Erik, Els, Henk, Thomas, Laura, Katrien, Nele, Leen, Zuzanna, Hannah, Jo and many others. I have been fortunate to be able to go beyond Antwerp as well. From Ghent, I would like to acknowledge Fons, Pieter, Wim, Laura, Boris, Barnaby, Sylvia, Fien, and Inge. From my time in Cambridge, I would like to thank Hasok Chang, Richard Staley, Joe Martin, Matt Farr, Jeremy Butterfield, Catarina Madruga, Caterina Sch¨urch, George Vardulakis, Melissa Mouthaan and Lorien Sabatino. From my visits to T¨ubingen,I want to extend my gratitude to Marco Giovanelli, Harvey Brown, Dennis Lehmkuhl, Thomas Ryckman, Jeroen van Dongen and Daniel Olson. From conferences throughout the years, there are too many people to mention, although a few deserve one: Massimiliano Simons, Brandon Boesch, and Philipp Haueis. Luckily, life is more than philosophy. I have had the great luck to have friends that reminded me often enough that there are other things to do than write or read: Pieter, Bart, Joshua, Wesley, Jef, Wout, Bob, Senne, Seppe, Raf, Gert, Jonas, Nick, Kristof, Michael, Bob, Jan, Lander, Jan, Beth, Emmanuelle, Ben, Griet, Sophie, Renate, Victor, Quinten, Maarten, Nelis, Tomas, Na¨ım, Camille, Jesse, Florian, Mathijs, Freek, Jonathan, Elisabeth, Katrin, Hanne, Karen, Joris, Niels, Sanne, Sander, Nick, Eefke, David, Tom, Thomas, Dorien, Ruth, Merel, Bernard, Ad`ele, Emilien, Caroline, Filip, Yentl, Stijn, Kamiel, Josip, Frederik, Jan, Lucas, Siemen and many others. Some people are more important for the writing of a dissertation than others. vii Contents Besides Bert, I want to give a special thanks to Fons, Pieter, and Joshua, who read parts of this work. Further, I want to thank my family, my sisters Marie and Ren´ee,my brother Jef, and especially my parents from the bottom of my heart, for supporting me and for providing a warm and loving home. Finally, there is one person whom I cannot thank enough, since she has been with me every step of the way: lots of love to Veerle, to whom I dedicate this work. viii Introduction This dissertation is concerned with an investigation of how we are to conceptualize the success of scientific experiments, in the sense of experiments providing informa- tion about what is investigated, if we do not characterize them purely in terms of ob- servation. In chapter 1, I will present a discussion of one particular non-observation- focused approach to scientific experimentation, namely Nancy Cartwright's and Ian Hacking's manipulability-idea. Elaborating how this idea emerged, how Cartwright and Hacking saw it as a solution to problems that plagued observation-focused pro- posals, and how their alternative in turn was problematized, will lead me to the formulation of the research question that is to guide and structure this dissertation: [Research Question]: How are we to characterize the information pro- vided by experimental manipulations? In chapters 2 and 3, I will then investigate this question by means of a discussion of two historical episodes involving experimental manipulations that were, for a certain time, seen as successful, but which were later reconceptualized in such a way that the experiments were no longer seen as providing the information assumed earlier. On the basis of these investigations, I will then elaborate in chapter 4 what I will call an epistemology of exploration for experimental manipulations, to be developed on the basis of work by Friedrich Steinle, Michela Massimi and Uljana Feest. Before proceeding, however, I will provide a short overview of where this disser- tation comes from, since, as will become clear near the end of this work, a part of research concerns conceptualizing and reconceptualizing its own history. The origi- nal goal of my PhD was to investigate how a naturalistic approach to metaphysics was possible from a practice-based view on science. As I put it in my research pro- posal: \My main objective is to develop a framework for naturalistic metaphysical inquiry that can give naturalistic metaphysicians a better understanding of what is metaphysically useful about scientific practice and how it can constrain their in- quiry". As one can already see from the few paragraphs written above, this goal has shifted quite a lot over the years.