Understanding Scientific Theories: An Assessment of Developments, 1969–1998

Philosophy of Science 67 (3):115 (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The positivistic Received View construed scientific theories syntactically as axiomatic calculi where theoretical terms were given a partial semantic interpretation via correspondence rules connecting them to observation statements. This paper assesses what, with hindsight, seem the most important defects in the Received View; surveys the main proposed successor analyses to the Received View--various Semantic Conception versions and the Structuralist Analysis; evaluates how well they avoid those defects; examines what new problems they face and where the most promising require further development or leave unanswered questions; explores implications of recent work on models for understanding theories; and rebuts the few criticisms of the Semantic Conception that have surfaced

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,619

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The semantic conception and the structuralist view of theories: A critique of Suppe’s criticisms.Pablo Lorenzano - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (4):600-607.
The Structure of Scientific Theories. [REVIEW]A. W. W. - 1975 - Review of Metaphysics 29 (2):358-359.
What’s Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory?John Beatty - 1980 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:397 - 426.
What Scientific Theories Could Not Be.Hans Halvorson - 2012 - Philosophy of Science 79 (2):183-206.
On a Straw Man in the Philosophy of Science - A Defense of the Received View.Sebastian Lutz - 2012 - Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 2 (1):77–120.
Defending the Semantic View: what it takes.Soazig Le Bihan - 2012 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (3):249-274.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
400 (#69,459)

6 months
22 (#132,046)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Nick Huggett
University of Illinois, Chicago

Citations of this work

What Was the Syntax‐Semantics Debate in the Philosophy of Science About?Sebastian Lutz - 2017 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 95 (2):319-352.
Structural realism and the nature of structure.Jonas R. Becker Arenhart & Otávio Bueno - 2015 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5 (1):111-139.
Nagelian Reduction Beyond the Nagel Model.Raphael van Riel - 2011 - Philosophy of Science 78 (3):353-375.
Theoretical equivalence in classical mechanics and its relationship to duality.Nicholas J. Teh & Dimitris Tsementzis - 2017 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 59:44-54.

View all 39 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Counterfactuals.David Lewis - 1973 - Foundations of Language 13 (1):145-151.
Scientific Explanation.P. Kitcher & W. C. Salmon - 1992 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43 (1):85-98.
Introduction to Logic.Roland Hall - 1960 - Philosophical Quarterly 10 (40):287-288.

View all 12 references / Add more references