Scientific articles exemplify standard functional units constraining argumentative structures. Severe space limitations demand every paragraph and illustration contribute to establishing the paper's claims. Philosophical testing and confirmation models should take into account each paragraph, table, and illustration. Hypothetico-Deductive, Bayesian Inductive, and Inference-to-the-Best-Explanation models do not, garbling the logic of papers. Micro-analysis of the fundamental paper in plate tectonics reveals an argumentative structure commonplace in science but ignored by standard philosophical accounts that cannot be dismissed as mere rhetorical embellishment. Papers with (...) illustrations often display a second argumentative structure differing from the text's. Constraints on adequate testing and confirmation analyses are adduced. “Experiments are about the assembly of persuasive arguments, ones that will stand up in court. … The task at hand is to capture the building-up of a persuasive argument about the world even in the absence of the logician's certainty.”—Galison, How Experiments End, 277. (shrink)

Suppe, F. The search for philosophic understanding of scientific theories (p. [1]-241)--Proceedings of the symposium.--Bibliography, compiled by Rew A. Godow, Jr. (p. [615]-646).

This article seeks rapprochement between the sociology of knowledge and philosophy of science by attempting to capture the best social constructionist insights within a strongly realistic philosophy of science. Key to doing so are separating the grounds for the individual scientist coming to know that P from those grounds for socially credentialing the claim that P within the relevant scientific subcommunity and showing how truth considerations can enter into the analysis of knowledge without interfering with social constructionist treatments of credentialing (...) claims. A detailed epistemology and associated account of the social credentialing of knowledge claims are presented. Close attention is paid to the epistemological and social aspects of the nature and role of observation reports, the interpretation of data, simplifications, idealizations, and approximations, and the nature of replication. The article contains a National Aeronautics and Space Administration remote-sensing case study and a detailed analysis of replication in the 1881–1933 Michelson-Morley-Miller interferometer ether studies. (shrink)

What I have to say falls under four headings: What is unity of science, unity and reductionism, the search for certainty, and the search for completeness.To answer this initial question, I turned to the introductory essay by Otto Neurath for Volume 1, Part 1, of the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. He begins this way:Unified science became historically the subject of this Encyclopedia as a result of the efforts of the unity of science movement, which includes scientists and persons interested (...) in science who are conscious of the importance of a universal scientific attitude.The new version of the idea of unified science is created by the confluence of divergent intellectual currents. Empirical work of scientists was often antagonistic to the logical constructions of a priori rationalism bred by philosophico-religious systems; therefore, “empiricalizatlon” and “logicalization” were considered mostly to be in opposition—the two have now become synthesized for the first time in history (p. I). (shrink)

Identifying demonstratives are of the form 'this d', Where d is a descriptive noun phrase. I am concerned with the effect of a misidentifying identifying demonstrative on the truth of propositions such as 'this d is p'; I argue there are circumstances in which 'this d is p' can be true when the referent of 'this d' is a p but is not a d. Extending the results, I argue there are circumstances where 'i know that this d is p' (...) and 'i believe that this d is p' can be true when the referent of 'this d' is a p but is not a d. The philosophical importance of the results is discussed. (shrink)

The Institute Vienna Circle held a conference in Vienna in 2003, Cambridge and Vienna – Frank P. Ramsey and the Vienna Circle, to commemorate the philosophical and scientific work of Frank Plumpton Ramsey (1903–1930). This Ramsey conference provided not only historical and biographical perspectives on one of the most gifted thinkers of the Twentieth Century, but also new impulses for further research on at least some of the topics pioneered by Ramsey, whose interest and potential are greater than ever. Ramsey (...) did pioneering work in several fields, practitioners of which rarely know of his important work in other fields: philosophy of logic and theory of language, foundations of mathematics, mathematics, probability theory, methodology of science, philosophy of psychology, and economics. There was a focus on the one topic which was of strongest mutual concern to Ramsey and the Vienna Circle, namely the question of foundations of mathematics, in particular the status of logicism. Although the major scientific connection linking Ramsey with Austria is his work on logic, to which the Vienna Circle dedicated several meetings, certainly the connection which is of greater general interest concerns Ramsey's visits and discussions with Wittgenstein. Ramsey was the only important thinker to actually visit Wittgenstein during his school-teaching career in Puchberg and Ottertal in the 1920s, in Lower Austria; and later, Ramsey was instrumental in getting Wittgenstein positions at Cambridge. (shrink)

Quine has proposed an alternative criterion for identifying observation sentences which has not yet received serious evaluation. We investigate this new criterion, showing how it differs from more traditional criteria and measuring it against the major objections to traditional criteria. Our judgment is that it meets Suppe's and Achinstein's objections and one version of the theory-ladenness objection offered by Hanson, Feyerabend, and Kuhn. We suggest how it might also provide an answer to the more serious version of the theory-ladenness objection. (...) To determine whether it meets this final objection, though, requires actual analysis of scientific cases, which has not yet been performed. (shrink)

The contents of this book were originally published in the September 1966 issue of Scientific American. A more appropriate-but perhaps less "catchy"—title would have been "Computers." The book is all about them and what they can—and cannot—do. Conspicuously missing is a chapter on the underlying mathematical theories of information, control, and computation. Nevertheless, there is a good deal of interesting material between the covers of this book. Of greatest concern to philosophers are the chapters on "Information" by John McCarthy, "Computer (...) Logic and Memory" by David C. Evans, "The Uses of Computers in Science" by Anthony G. Oettinger, "The Uses of Computers in Education" by Patrick Suppes, and "Artificial Intelligence" by Marvin L. Minsky. The first of these consists of a brief history of computing machines, an outline of the general principles of digital computers, and an interesting discussion of some of the moral and social issues which such machines raise. Evans' article is a popular description of binary logics and logic devices. The present reviewer has used some of the material in this chapter as embellishments in an undergraduate course in logic. Oettinger's article describes the novel way in which computers may aid in the formation of scientific theories. The paper by Suppes ought to be required reading for members of the "Teaching machines undermine intellectual development" school of thought. Finally, a philosopher of mind might have a field day with some of the remarkable and outrageous notions in Minsky's article; what, for example, is the difference between "thinking" and "exhibiting intelligence"? In sum, this is a stimulating book about a technological development which, for good or ill, is going to affect all of us.—H. P. K. (shrink)

The emphasis in this collection is clearly on logic, and this is one reason why it lacks the overall diversity and richness of the 1960 Stanford volume. However, the eight sections do contain much interesting material; in the mathematical logic section Kochen and Specker continue their study of logics appropriate for quantum theory, Vaught presents several new results about the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem, and Büchi studies second-order ordinal theory from the viewpoint of automata theory; the section on foundations of mathematical theories (...) contains papers on higher-order logic by Kaplan and Montague, model theory and ultra-products by Keisler, definability in set theory by Lévy. The topic of the justification of formal theories was the essential topic of the philosophy of logic section: an especially interesting paper is that of A. Robinson in which the present state of Hilbertean Formalism is analyzed, and in which the notion of potential truth is formalized. The section on the philosophy of science contains a single paper, by Hesse, on metaphor and explanation; Braithwaite, Hintikka, Jeffrey, and Kyburg contribute to a lively section on probability and induction; the section on methodology in physical science takes as topics the theory of relativity, causality, and irreversibility. The last two sections, on the philosophy of the life sciences, and on history of logic and philosophy of science, contain, respectively, papers by Davidson and Suppes on meaning and concept formation, and essays by Church and Geach on existential import historically considered and intentionality among the medievals. The collection would have been better if more of the contributed papers had been included.—P. J. M. (shrink)

This recent addition to the well-known "Studies in Logic" series is sure to be of first importance to serious students of inductive logic, confirmation theory, and related issues. The book is an anthology of fourteen papers, which are classified under five different headings: "Extensions of Inductive Logic," "Induction and Information," "Prospects of Confirmation Theory," "The Paradoxes of Confirmation," and "Probability and Foundational Problems." Needless to say, all of the papers are of uniformly high quality. Especially worthy of mention are two (...) papers by Hintikka and Hilpinen which deal with an interesting generalization of Carnap's continuum of inductive methods, and which lead to a somewhat more plausible treatment of non-logically-true closed sentences. Suppes contributes two papers dealing with the recently revived Bayesian methods and their significance for concept formation in psychology and confirmation theory in the philosophy of science. Also under the heading of confirmation theory, one might mention Max Black's paper, "Notes on the Paradoxes of Confirmation," a lucid and rather novel approach to this problem. There is also an important paper by Dana Scott and Peter Krauss entitled "Assigning Probabilities to Logical Formulas." This piece of work presents a set-theoretical method for bridging the gap between the standard treatment of probability by means of axioms defining a real measure over a Boolean algebra and the usual logical inquiries into "degree of confirmation" and the like. The reference value of the book is enhanced by a subject index of terms and concepts dealt with in the various papers.—H. P. K. (shrink)

Yet another introductory text of symbolic logic and a very good one, at that. The four principal chapters of this book treat propositional logic and predicate calculus, devoting two chapters to each. Each of these subsections is roughly organized as follows: An initial chapter presents the basic notational devices, translation methods, and intuitive discussion of arguments and validity. The subsequent chapter gives exact formation and transformation rules, proofs and metalinguistic considerations of questions of consistency and completeness. Lemmon's notation is similar (...) to that of Suppes, and his system bears some similarity to the rules of inference in Fitch's 1951 text, although Lemmon's system is a "standard" one. Two appendices, dealing with normal forms and elementary set theory, and an annotated bibliography of relevant works complete this high-quality text. An obviously promising career was cut tragically short by the premature death of the author in 1966.—H. P. K. (shrink)

The process of abstraction and concretisation is a label used for an explicative theory of scientific model-construction. In scientific theorising this process enters at various levels. We could identify two principal levels of abstraction that are useful to our understanding of theory-application. The first level is that of selecting a small number of variables and parameters abstracted from the universe of discourse and used to characterise the general laws of a theory. In classical mechanics, for example, we select position and (...) momentum and establish a relation amongst the two variables, which we call Newton’s 2nd law. The specification of the unspecified elements of scientific laws, e.g. the force function in Newton’s 2nd law, is what would establish the link between the assertions of the theory and physical systems. In order to unravel how and with what conceptual resources scientific models are constructed, how they function and how they relate to theory, we need a view of theory-application that can accommodate our constructions of representation models. For this we need to expand our understanding of the process of abstraction to also explicate the process of specifying force functions etc. This is the second principal level at which abstraction enters in our theorising and in which I focus. In this paper, I attempt to elaborate a general analysis of the process of abstraction and concretisation involved in scientific- model construction, and argue why it provides an explication of the construction of models of the nuclear structure. (shrink)

A collection of papers delivered at a colloquium in 1960. Most are quite brief; all are at a rather high level of technical sophistication. Of general interest are L. Apostel's "Toward the Formal Study of Models in the Non-Formal Sciences," which concludes that a unique definition of models in terms of their function should be the basis for a general description of this "multiform concept"; H. Freudenthal's discussion of "models in Applied Probability"; a historical treatment of "Model and Insight" by (...) A. Kuipers; and P. Suppes's "Comparison of the Meaning and Uses of Models in Mathematics and the Empirical Sciences," which stresses the "set-theoretical" notion of model and emphasizes the possibility of greater formalization of the empirical sciences through the former. Among other authors represented are E. W. Beth, J. L. Destouches, and J. B. Ubbink.--R. D. P. (shrink)

This collects some of the remarks made at the 2016 Pacific APA Memorial session for Patrick Suppes and Jaakko Hintikka. The full list of speakers on behalf of these two philosophers: Dagfinn Follesdal; Dana Scott; Nancy Cartwright; Paul Humphreys; Juliet Floyd; Gabriel Sandu; John Symons.

In einer Kritik der Hempelschen Erklärungstheorie hat W. Stegmüller gezeigt, daß zur Erklärung nur die "wirklichen Realgründe", also die Ursachen eines Ereignisses herangegezogen werden können, und W. C. Salmon hat darauf aufmerksam gemacht, daß in Erklärungen nur relevante Faktoren angeführt werden dürfen. Für die Theorie der wissenschaftlichen Erklärung ist daher heute die probabilistische Kausalitätstheorie von P. Suppes besonders interessant; denn Suppes versucht, den Begriff der Ursache statistisch zu fassen und auf den Begriff der statistischen Relevanz zurückzuführen. In diesem Aufsatz werden (...) deshalb die Grundzüge der Kausalitätstheorie von Suppes dargestellt und diskutiert. Dabei ergibt sich zunächst, daß Suppes' eigene Formulierung dieser Theorie nicht adäquat ist, da in ihr die Carnapsche Forderung des Gesamtdatums nicht hinreichend berücksichtigt wird. Diese Schwierigkeit kann jedoch überwunden werden, wenn man den Begriff der "kausalen Abschirmung" bzw. der "nur scheinbaren Ursache" - in engerer Anlehnung an die Überlegungen Salmons - etwas anders definiert als Suppes und wenn man darüberhinaus bei der Beurteilung der statistischen Relevanz einzelner Faktoren jeweils die Menge aller für ein gegebenes Ereignis statistisch relevanten Ereignisse berücksichtigt. Zum Abschluß wird kurz die Frage aufgeworfen, inwieweit es überhaupt sinnvoll sein kann, den Begriff der Kausalität statistisch zu definieren. Es wird argumentiert, daß sich diese Frage nicht definitiv beantworten läßt, da in diesem Zusammenhang Konventionen eine entscheidende Rolle spielen, daß es jedoch einige - wenn auch eher intuitive - Argumente gegen statistische Kausalitätstheorien gibt, die es wahrscheinlich machen, daß z. B. die Überlegungen J. L. Mackies zum Begriff der Kausalität unserem alltagssprachlichen Begriff der Verursachung sehr viel mehr gerecht werden als die Überlegungen von Suppes. (shrink)

The aim of this series is to inform both professional philosophers and a larger readership (of social and natural scientists, methodologists, mathematicians, students, teachers, publishers, etc.) about what is going on, who's who, and who does what in contemporary philosophy and logic. PROFILES is designed to present the research activity and the results of already outstanding personalities and schools and of newly emerging ones in the various fields of philosophy and logic. There are many Festschrift volumes dedicated to various philosophers. (...) There is the celebrated Library of Living Philosophers edited by P.A. Schilpp whose format influenced the present enterprise. Still they can only cover very little of the contemporary philosophical scene. Faced with a tremenƯ dous expansion of philosophical information and with an almost frightenƯ ing division of labor and increasing specialization we need systematic and regular ways of keeping track of what happens in the profession. PROƯ FILES is intended to perform such a function. Each volume is devoted to one or several philosophers whose views and results are presented and discussed. The profiled philosopher(s) will summarize and review his (their) own work in the main fields of signifiƯ cant contribution. This work will be discussed and evaluated by invited contributors. Relevant historical and/or biographical data, an up-to-date bibliography with short abstracts of the most important works and, whenever possible, references to significant reviews and discussions will also be included. (shrink)