About this topic
Summary Topics covered under the rubric of "Scientific Language Misc" are simply those which do not fall in any straightforward manner into other sections of the "Scientific Language" category.
  Show all references
Related categories
Siblings:
22 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
  1. Holger Andreas (2010). Semantic Holism in Scientific Language. Philosophy of Science 77 (4):524-543.
    Whether meaning is compositional has been a major issue in linguistics and formal philosophy of language for the last 2 decades. Semantic holism is widely and plausibly considered as an objection to the principle of semantic compositionality therein. It comes as a surprise that the holistic peculiarities of scientific language have been rarely addressed in formal accounts so far, given that semantic holism has its roots in the philosophy of science. For this reason, a model-theoretic approach to semantic holism in (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Jesús P. Zamora Bonilla (2003). Meaning and Testability in the Structuralist Theory of Science. Erkenntnis 59 (1):47 - 76.
    The connection between scientific knowledge and our empirical access to realityis not well explained within the structuralist approach to scientific theories. I arguethat this is due to the use of a semantics not rich enough from the philosophical pointof view. My proposal is to employ Sellars–Brandom's inferential semantics to understand how can scientific terms have empirical content, and Hintikka's game-theoretical semantics to analyse how can theories be empirically tested. The main conclusions are that scientific concepts gain their meaning through `basic (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Richard N. Boyd (1993). Metaphor and Theory Change. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Jordi Cat (2012). Thomas Uebel. Empiricism at the Crossroads: The Vienna Circle's Protocol-Sentence Debate. Full Circle: Publications of the Archive of Scientific Philosophy 4. Chicago: Open Court, 2007. Pp. Xviii+ 518. $80.96 (Paper). [REVIEW] Hopos 2 (2):354-360.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Steven G. Darian (2003). Understanding the Language of Science. University of Texas Press.
    "To my knowledge, there has never [before] been a volume that analyzes, in one place, the actual language of science--those elements of thinking that are acknowledged to be the basis of scientific thought. . . . [Thus] this is a very important book, contributing to several fields: science, education, rhetoric, medicine, and perhaps even philosophy. . . . Darian's erudition is truly astonishing." --Celest A. Martin, Associate Professor, College Writing Program, University of Rhode Island From astronomy to zoology, the practice (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Kevin Elliott, Ignorance, Uncertainty, and the Development of Scientific Language.
    Robert Proctor has argued that ignorance or non-knowledge can be fruitfully divided into at least three categories: (1) ignorance as native state or starting point; (2) ignorance as lost realm or selective choice; and (3) ignorance as strategic ploy or active construct. This chapter explores Proctor’s second category, ignorance as selective choice. When scientists investigate poorly understood phenomena, they have to make selective choices about what questions to ask, what research strategies and metrics to employ, and what language to use (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Jan Faye, Interpretation in the Natural Sciences.
    Interpretation in science has gained little attention in the past because philosophers of science believed that interpretation belongs to the context of discovery or must be associated with meaning. But scientists often speak about interpretation when they report their findings. Elsewhere I have argue in favour of a pragmatic-rhetorical theory of explanation, and it is in light of this theory that I suggest we can understand interpretation in the natural sciences.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Alan Ford & F. David Peat (1988). The Role of Language in Science. Foundations of Physics 18 (12):1233-1242.
    It is argued that language plays an active role in the development of scientific thought. A research project is outlined which will investigate this hypothesis and, in addition, focus on such questions as the role of mathematics in science and the status of the genetic code. “Nothing is more usual than for philosophers to encroach on the province of grammarians, and to engage in disputes of words, while they imagine they are handling controversies of the deepest importance and concern.”—David Hume.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. D. Greimann (2000). The Judgement-Stroke as a Truth-Operator: A New Interpretation of the Logical Form of Sentences in Frege's Scientific Language. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 52 (2):213-238.
    The syntax of Frege's scientific language iscommonly taken to be characterized by two oddities:the representation of the intended illocutionary roleof sentences by a special sign, the judgement-stroke,and the treatment of sentences as a species ofsingular terms. In this paper, an alternative view isdefended. The main theses are: (i) the syntax ofFrege's scientific language aims at an explication ofthe logical form of judgements; (ii) thejudgement-stroke is, therefore, a truth-operator, nota pragmatic operator; (iii) in Frege's first system,` ' expresses that the circumstance (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Ernest H. Hutten (1954). Natural and Scientific Language. Philosophy 29 (108):27 - 43.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Kevin B. Korb (2004). Introduction: Machine Learning as Philosophy of Science. Minds and Machines 14 (4):433-440.
    I consider three aspects in which machine learning and philosophy of science can illuminate each other: methodology, inductive simplicity and theoretical terms. I examine the relations between the two subjects and conclude by claiming these relations to be very close.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (12 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Ulrich Meyer (2002). Is Science First-Order? Analysis 62 (276):305-308.
    It is a popular view amongst some philosophers, most notably those with Quinean views about ontological commitment, that scientific theories are first-orderizable; that we can regiment all such theories in an extensional first-order language. I argue that this view is false, and that any acceptable account of science needs to take some modal notion as primitive.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Steven I. Miller & Marcel Fredericks (1997). Another View of Translation Manuals and the Study of Science. Synthese 113 (2):171-193.
    The article argues for the possibility of translation manuals having an implicit internal structure. This structure is composed of specific methodological assumptions and techniques. Using the (N)-type and (G)-type distinction developed by Fuller for the study of scientific behavior, it is shown that these are incomplete characterizations of translation manuals. A more complete characterization must involve an analysis of how the presence or absence of methodological rules influences the interpretation of specific research questions. It is further argued that while Quine's (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Andrew Moore (2013). On the State of Scientific English and How to Improve It–Part 3. Bioessays 35 (8):667-667.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Andrew Moore (2013). On the State of Scientific English and How to Improve It–Part 1. Bioessays 35 (5):409-409.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Andrew Moore (2013). On the State of Scientific English and How to Improve It–Part 4. Bioessays 35 (11):925-925.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. S. Psillos (1996). Review. Science, Reality and Language. Michelle Marsonet. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47 (4):663-668.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Morton L. Schagrin (1973). Whewell's Theory of Scientific Language. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 4 (3):231-240.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Pradip Kumar Sengupta (1995). Science, Language, and Creativity. Progressive Publishers.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Roy A. Sorensen (1997). The Metaphysics of Precision and Scientific Language. Philosophical Perspectives 11 (s11):349-374.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. J. Starobinski (1977). Poetic Language and Scientific Language. Diogenes 25 (100):128-145.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. H. Stonert (1964). Languages and Theories Adequate to the Ontology of Scientific Language. Studia Logica 15 (1):76-77.