This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Siblings:
93 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
1 — 50 / 93
  1. Mavriche Adrian (2012). Dr. NON (non):10.
    The present document starts from the relative existence of the electromagnetic field, reaching through mental experiments its connection with the gravitational field, without the necessity to resort to other space - time dimensions or supplementary "exotic" particles. The final conclusion is that the field "electro-gravitational" and electromagnetic field with accelerated source are two different manifestations of the same single field dynamic. Whilst demonstrating why there are light sources with "flee" towards the red or blue of the light spectrum.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. Jody Azzouni (2014). A New Characterization of Scientific Theories. Synthese 191 (13):2993-3008.
    First, I discuss the older “theory-centered” and the more recent semantic conception of scientific theories. I argue that these two perspectives are nothing more than terminological variants of one another. I then offer a new theory-centered view of scientific theories. I argue that this new view captures the insights had by each of these earlier views, that it’s closer to how scientists think about their own theories, and that it better accommodates the phenomenon of inconsistent scientific theories.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  3. Massimiliano Badino, Three Dogmas on Scientific Theory.
    Most philosophical accounts on scientific theories are affected by three dogmas or ingrained attitudes. These dogmas have led philosophers to choose between analyzing the internal structure of theories or their historical evolution. In this paper, I turn these three dogmas upside down. I argue (i) that mathematical practices are not epistemically neutral, (ii) that the morphology of theories can be very complex, and (iii) that one should view theoretical knowledge as the combination of internal factors and their intrinsic historicity.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Joaquín Barutta & Pablo Lorenzano (2012). Reconstrucción estructuralista de la teoría del movimiento circular de la sangre, de William Harvey. Scientiae Studia 10 (2):219-241.
    En las investigaciones sobre fisiología cardiovascular desarrolladas por William Harvey es posible distinguir entre dos teorías que responden a preguntas diferentes. La primera de ellas, que denominamos teoría del movimiento circular de la sangre, intenta dar una respuesta al problema sobre la cantidad de sangre que se mueve dentro del sistema. La segunda pretende dar cuenta de las causas de que la sangre se mueva y la denominamos teoría de las causas del movimiento de la sangre. En este trabajo, presentamos (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. John Beatty (1980). What's Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory? PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:397 - 426.
    Much if not most recent literature in philosophy of biology concerns the extent to which biological theories conform to what is known as the "received" philosophical view of scientific theories, a descendant of the logical-empiricist view of theories. But the received view currently faces a competitor--a very different view of theories known as the "semantic" view. It is argued here that the semantic view is more sensitive to the nature and limitations of evolutionary theory than is the received view. In (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  6. Yann Benétreau-Dupin (2011). An Empiricist Criterion of Meaning. South African Journal of Philosophy 30 (2):95-108.
    The meaning of scientific propositions is not always expressible in terms of observable phenomena. Such propositions involve generalizations, and also terms that are theoretical constructs. I study here how to assess the meaning of scientific propositions, that is, the specific import of theoretical terms. Empiricists have expressed a concern that scientific propositions, and theoretical terms, should always be, to some degree, related to observable consequences. We can see that the former empiricist criterion of meaning only implies for theoretical terms not (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  7. John Bickle (1993). Connectionism, Eliminativism, and the Semantic View of Theories. Erkenntnis 39 (3):359-382.
    Recently some philosophers have urged that connectionist artificial intelligence is (potentially) eliminative for the propositional attitudes of folk psychology. At the same time, however, these philosophers have also insisted that since philosophy of science has failed to provide criteria distinguishing ontologically retentive from eliminative theory changes, the resulting eliminativism is not principled. Application of some resources developed within the semantic view of scientific theories, particularly recent formal work on the theory reduction relation, reveals these philosophers to be wrong in this (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  8. Otávio Bueno & Décio Krause (2010). Scientific Theories, Models, and the Semantic Approach. Principia 11 (2):187-201.
    According to the semantic view, a theory is characterized by a class of models. In this paper, we examine critically some of the assumptions that underlie this approach. First, we recall that models are models of something. Thus we cannot leave completely aside the axiomatization of the theories under consideration, nor can we ignore the metamathematics used to elaborate these models, for changes in the metamathematics often impose restrictions on the resulting models. Second, based on a parallel between van Fraassen’s (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  9. Anjan Chakravartty (2001). The Semantic or Model-Theoretic View of Theories and Scientific Realism. Synthese 127 (3):325 - 345.
    The semantic view of theoriesis one according to which theoriesare construed as models of their linguisticformulations. The implications of thisview for scientific realism have been little discussed. Contraryto the suggestion of various champions of the semantic view,it is argued that this approach does not makesupport for a plausible scientific realism anyless problematic than it might otherwise be.Though a degree of independence of theory fromlanguage may ensure safety frompitfalls associated with logical empiricism, realism cannot be entertained unless models or (abstractedand/or idealized) (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   20 citations  
  10. John D. Collier (1992). Critical Notice of Paul Thomson's The Structure of Biological Theories. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 22 (2).
    In this critical notice, I argue that the semantic view championed by Thompson no logical advantage over the syntactic view of theories, especially in the area of interpretation. Each weakness of the syntactic view has a corresponding weakness in the semantic view. In principle the two are not different in power, but it is sometimes better to adopt one rather than the other, for practical reasons. I agree with Thompson that many issues in the philosophy of biology can be illuminated (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. Gabriele Contessa (2006). Scientific Models, Partial Structures and the New Received View of Theories. [REVIEW] Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37 (2):370-377.
  12. Thomas Cunningham, To Save the Semantic View: An Argument for Returning to Suppes' Interpretation.
    Recent work on the semantic view of scientific theories is highly critical of the position. This paper identifies two common criticisms of the view, describes two popular alternatives for responding to them, and argues those responses do not suffice. Subsequently, it argues that retuning to Patrick Suppes’ interpretation of the position provides the conceptual resources for rehabilitating the semantic view.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. Newton da Costa & Steven French (2000). Models, Theories, and Structures: Thirty Years On. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):127.
    Thirty years after the conference that gave rise to The Structure of Scientific Theories, there is renewed interest in the nature of theories and models. However, certain crucial issues from thirty years ago are reprised in current discussions; specifically: whether the diversity of models in the science can be captured by some unitary account; and whether the temporal dimension of scientific practice can be represented by such an account. After reviewing recent developments we suggest that these issues can be accommodated (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  14. Krause Décio & Bueno Otávio, Scientific Theories, Models, and the Semantic Approach.
    According to the semantic view, a theory is characterized by a class of models. In this paper, we examine critically some of the assumptions that underlie this approach. First, we recall that models are models of something. Thus we cannot leave completely aside the axiomatization of the theories under consideration, nor can we ignore the metamathematics used to elaborate these models, for changes in the metamathematics often impose restrictions on the resulting models. Second, based on a parallel between van Fraassen's (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Jose Diez, Jose Falguera & Pablo Lorenzano (2011). Introducción - Introduction - Introdução. Metatheoria 1 (2):1-7.
    It is the Introduction to Metatheoria’s Special Issue in homage to Joseph D. Sneed, in the fortieth anniversary of the publication of Sneed’s The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1971, 2nd revised ed. 1979) first edition, which marks the birth of metatheoretical structuralism.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  16. José Díez & Pablo Lorenzano (2015). Are Natural Selection Explanatory Models a Priori? Biology and Philosophy 30 (6):787-809.
    The epistemic status of Natural Selection has seemed intriguing to biologists and philosophers since the very beginning of the theory to our present times. One prominent contemporary example is Elliott Sober, who claims that NS, and some other theories in biology, and maybe in economics, are peculiar in including explanatory models/conditionals that are a priori in a sense in which explanatory models/conditionals in Classical Mechanics and most other standard theories are not. Sober’s argument focuses on some “would promote” sentences that (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. José Díez & Pablo Lorenzano (2013). Who Got What Wrong? Fodor and Piattelli on Darwin: Guiding Principles and Explanatory Models in Natural Selection. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 78 (5):1143-1175.
    The purpose of this paper is to defend, contra Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini (F&PP), that the theory of natural selection (NS) is a perfectly bona fide empirical unified explanatory theory. F&PP claim there is nothing non-truistic, counterfactual-supporting, of an “adaptive” character and common to different explanations of trait evolution. In his debate with Fodor, and in other works, Sober defends NS but claims that, compared with classical mechanics (CM) and other standard theories, NS is peculiar in that its explanatory models are (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  18. Stephen M. Downes (1992). The Importance of Models in Theorizing: A Deflationary Semantic View. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:142 - 153.
    I critically examine the semantic view of theories to reveal the following results. First, models in science are not the same as models in mathematics, as holders of the semantic view claim. Second, when several examples of the semantic approach are examined in detail no common thread is found between them, except their close attention to the details of model building in each particular science. These results lead me to propose a deflationary semantic view, which is simply that model construction (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   15 citations  
  19. Luiz Henrique de A. Dutra (2008). Models and the Semantic and Pragmatic Views of Theories. Principia 12 (1):73-86.
    http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2008v12n1p73 This paper aims at discussing from the point of view of a pragmatic stance the concept of model as an abstract replica. According to this view, scientific models are abstract structures different from set-theoretic models. The view of models argued for here stems from the conceptions of some important philosophers of science who elaborated on the notion of model, such as Suppe, Cartwright, Hempel, and Nagel. Differently from all those authors, however, the conception of model argued for here is (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. Marc Ereshefsky (1991). The Semantic Approach to Evolutionary Theory. Biology and Philosophy 6 (1):59-80.
    Paul Thompson, John Beatty, and Elisabeth Lloyd argue that attempts to resolve certain conceptual issues within evolutionary biology have failed because of a general adherence to the received view of scientific theories. They maintain that such issues can be clarified and resolved when one adopts a semantic approach to theories. In this paper, I argue that such conceptual issues are just as problematic on a semantic approach. Such issues arise from the complexity involved in providing formal accounts of theoretical laws (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  21. Steven French & James Ladyman (1999). Reinflating the Semantic Approach. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 13 (2):103 – 121.
    The semantic, or model-theoretic, approach to theories has recently come under criticism on two fronts: (i) it is claimed that it cannot account for the wide diversity of models employed in scientific practice—a claim which has led some to propose a “deflationary” account of models; (ii) it is further contended that the sense of “model” used by the approach differs from that given in model theory. Our aim in the present work is to articulate a possible response to these claims, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   44 citations  
  22. Steven French & Juha Saatsi (2006). Realism About Structure: The Semantic View and Nonlinguistic Representations. Philosophy of Science 73 (5):548-559.
    The central concern of this paper is whether the Semantic Approach to theories has the resources to appropriately capture the core tenets of structural realism. Chakravartty, for example, has argued that a realist notion of correspondence cannot be accommodated without introducing a linguistic component which undermines the Approach itself. We suggest first of all, that this worry can be addressed by an appropriate understanding of the role of language with respect to the Semantic Approach. Secondly, we argue that an appropriately (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  23. Steven French & Juha Saatsi (2006). Realism About Structure: The Semantic View and Nonlinguistic Representations. Philosophy of Science 73 (5):548-559.
    The central concern of this article is whether the semantic approach has the resources to appropriately capture the core tenets of structural realism. Chakravartty (2001) has argued that a realist notion of correspondence cannot be accommodated without introducing a linguistic component, which undermines the approach itself. We suggest that this worry can be addressed by an appropriate understanding of the role of language in this context. The real challenge, however, is how to incorporate the core notion of `explanatory approximate truth' (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  24. Roman Frigg, Models and Representation: Why Structures Are Not Enough.
    Models occupy a central role in the scientific endeavour. Among the many purposes they serve, representation is of great importance. Many models are representations of something else; they stand for, depict, or imitate a selected part of the external world (often referred to as target system, parent system, original, or prototype). Well-known examples include the model of the solar system, the billiard ball model of a gas, the Bohr model of the atom, the Gaussian-chain model of a polymer, the MIT (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  25. Roman Frigg (2006). Scientific Representation and the Semantic View of Theories. Theoria 21 (1):49-65.
    It is now part and parcel of the official philosophical wisdom that models are essential to the acquisition and organisation of scientific knowledge. It is also generally accepted that most models represent their target systems in one way or another. But what does it mean for a model to represent its target system? I begin by introducing three conundrums that a theory of scientific representation has to come to terms with and then address the question of whether the semantic view (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   31 citations  
  26. Santiago Ginnobili (2016). Missing Concepts in Natural Selection Theory Reconstructions. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 38 (8):1-33.
    The concept of fitness has generated a lot of discussion in philosophy of biology. There is, however, relative agreement about the need to distinguish at least two uses of the term: ecological fitness on the one hand, and population genetics fitness on the other. The goal of this paper is to give an explication of the concept of ecological fitness by providing a reconstruction of the theory of natural selection in which this concept was framed, that is, based on the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. Santiago Ginnobili (2004). Desarrollos actuales de la metateoría estructuralista: Problemas y discusiones. [REVIEW] Análisis Filosófico 24 (1):111-113.
    Un aspecto poco estudiado del argumento de Michael Sandel en contra del carácter neutral de la justicia como equidad, es el modo en que funda sus conclusiones en el entendimiento que tiene de otros tres aspectos de la concepción rawlsiana de justicia: su carácter deontológico, el equilibrio reflexivo, y la posición original. Nuestro objetivo es mostrar que Sandel no ha cometido cuatro errores independientes, sino que poseer un entendimiento equivocado del carácter deontológico de la teoría lo ha llevado a caracterizar (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. Santiago Ginnobili & Christián Carman (2016). Explicar y contrastar. Critica 48 (142):57-86.
    Resumen: Usualmente se ha asumido que una única distinción puede dar cuenta del rol que cumplen los conceptos en una teoría respecto de la contrastación y respecto de la explicación. Intentaremos mostrar que esta asunción es incorrecta. Por una parte, no hay razones para considerar que esta coincidencia deba darse, y por otra, como se intentará mostrar a partir de varios ejemplos, de hecho, no se da. La base de contrastación de una teoría no tiene por qué coincidir con el (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. Zygmunt Hajduk (1978). Received and Descriptive View on Scientific Theories. Roczniki Filozoficzne 26 (3):36.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. Hans Halvorson (2013). The Semantic View, If Plausible, Is Syntactic. Philosophy of Science 80 (3):475-478.
    Halvorson argues that the semantic view of theories leads to absurdities. Glymour shows how to inoculate the semantic view against Halvorson's criticisms, namely by making it into a syntactic view of theories. I argue that this modified semantic-syntactic view cannot do the philosophical work that the original "language-free" semantic view was supposed to do.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  31. Hans Halvorson (2012). What Scientific Theories Could Not Be. Philosophy of Science 79 (2):183-206.
    According to the semantic view of scientific theories, theories are classes of models. I show that this view -- if taken seriously as a formal explication -- leads to absurdities. In particular, this view equates theories that are truly distinct, and it distinguishes theories that are truly equivalent. Furthermore, the semantic view lacks the resources to explicate interesting theoretical relations, such as embeddability of one theory into another. The untenability of the semantic view -- as currently formulated -- threatens to (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   20 citations  
  32. Robin F. Hendry & Stathis Psillos (2007). How to Do Things with Theories: An Interactive View of Language and Models in Science. In Jerzy Brzeziński, Andrzej Klawiter, Theo A. F. Kuipers, Krzysztof Łastowski, Katarzyna Paprzycka & Piotr Przybysz (eds.), The Courage of Doing Philosophy: Essays Dedicated to Leszek Nowak. Rodopi 123--157.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  33. Barbara L. Horan (1986). Sociobiology and the Semantic View of Theories. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:322 - 330.
    The semantic view of scientific theories has been defended as more adequate than the "received" view, especially with respect to biological theories. However, the semantic view has not been evaluated on its own terms. In this paper it is first shown how the theory of sociobiology propounded by E.O. Wilson can be understood on the semantic approach. The criticism that Wilson's theory is beset by the problem of unreliable generalizations is discussed. It is suggested that this problem results from the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Colin Klein (2013). Multiple Realizability and the Semantic View of Theories. Philosophical Studies 163 (3):683-695.
    Multiply realizable properties are those whose realizers are physically diverse. It is often argued that theories which contain them are ipso facto irreducible. These arguments assume that physical explanations are restricted to the most specific descriptions possible of physical entities. This assumption is descriptively false, and philosophically unmotivated. I argue that it is a holdover from the late positivist axiomatic view of theories. A semantic view of theories, by contrast, correctly allows scientific explanations to be couched in the most perspicuous, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35. Tarja Knuuttila (2011). Scientific Models in Philosophy of Science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24 (4):437-440.
    Scientists have used models for hundreds of years as a means of describing phenomena and as a basis for further analogy. In Scientific Models in Philosophy of Science, Daniela Bailer-Jones assembles an original and comprehensive philosophical analysis of how models have been used and interpreted in both historical and contemporary contexts. Bailer-Jones delineates the many forms models can take (ranging from equations to animals; from physical objects to theoretical constructs), and how they are put to use. She examines early mechanical (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. Décio Krause & Otávio Bueno (2007). Scientific Theories, Models, and the Semantic Approach. Principia 11 (2):187-201.
    According to the semantic view, a theory is characterized by a class of mod- els. In this paper, we examine critically some of the assumptions that underlie this approach. First, we recall that models are models of something. Thus we cannot leave completely aside the axiomatization of the theories under consider- ation, nor can we ignore the metamathematics used to elaborate these models, for changes in the metamathematics often impose restrictions on the resulting models. Second, based on a parallel between (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  37. James A. T. Lancaster (2011). The Semantic Structure of Evolutionary Biology as an Argument Against Intelligent Design. Zygon 46 (1):26-46.
    Abstract. This paper examines the impact of two formalizations of evolutionary biology on the antiselectionist critiques of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. It looks first at attempts to apply the syntactic framework of the physical sciences to biology in the twentieth century, and to their effect upon the ID movement. It then examines the more heuristic account of biological-theory structure, namely, the semantic model. Finally, it concludes by advocating the semantic conception and emphasizing the problems that the semantic model creates (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. Soazig Le Bihan (2012). Defending the Semantic View: What It Takes. [REVIEW] European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (3):249-274.
    In this paper, a modest version of the Semantic View is motivated as both tenable and potentially fruitful for philosophy of science. An analysis is proposed in which the Semantic View is characterized by three main claims. For each of these claims, a distinction is made between stronger and more modest interpretations. It is argued that the criticisms recently leveled against the Semantic View hold only under the stronger interpretations of these claims. However, if one only commits to the modest (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. Chuang Liu, Fictional Models in Science.
    In this paper, I begin with a discussion of Giere’s recent work arguing against taking models as works of fiction. I then move on to explore a spectrum of scientific models that goes from the obviously fictional to the not so obviously fictional. And then I discuss the modeling of the unobservable and make a case for the idea that despite difficulties of defining them, unobservable systems are modeled in a fundamentally different way than the observable systems. While idealization and (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40. Chuang Liu (1997). Models and Theories I: The Semantic View Revisited. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 11 (2):147 – 164.
    The paper, as Part I of a two-part series, argues for a hybrid formulation of the semantic view of scientific theories. For stage-setting, it first reviews the elements of the model theory in mathematical logic (on whose foundation the semantic view rests), the syntactic and the semantic view, and the different notions of models used in the practice of science. The paper then argues for an integration of the notions into the semantic view, and thereby offers a hybrid semantic view, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  41. Elisabeth A. Lloyd (1984). A Semantic Approach to the Structure of Population Genetics. Philosophy of Science 51 (2):242-264.
    A precise formulation of the structure of modern evolutionary theory has proved elusive. In this paper, I introduce and develop a formal approach to the structure of population genetics, evolutionary theory's most developed sub-theory. Under the semantic approach, used as a framework in this paper, presenting a theory consists in presenting a related family of models. I offer general guidelines and examples for the classification of population genetics models; the defining features of the models are taken to be their state (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  42. Elisabeth Anne Lloyd (1984). A Semantic Approach to the Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Dissertation, Princeton University
    The structure of evolutionary theory has proved difficult to characterize. Most available analyses focus on the existence of evolutionary laws and on the axiomatizability of the theory; such analyses pay insufficient attention to mathematical evolutionary models and their structure, and to the structural complications arising from the variety of evolutionary sub-theories. ;The primary goal of this dissertation is to introduce and develop an analysis of the structure of evolutionary theory that is both precise and useful. The secondary goal is to (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43. P. Lorenzano, W. Balzer, C. U. Moulines & J. Sneed (2000). Structuralist Knowledge Representation: Paradigmatic Examples. In Joseph D. Sneed, Wolfgang Balzer & C.-U. Moulines (eds.), Structuralist Knowledge Representation: Paradigmatic Examples. Rodopi
    Contents: Foreword. Wolfgang BALZER and C. ULISES MOULINES: Introduction. José A. DÍEZ CALZADA: Structuralist Analysis of Theories of Fundamental Measurement. Adolfo GARCÍA DE LA SIENRA and Pedro REYES: The Theory of Finite Games in Extensive Form. Hans Joachim BURSCHEID und Horst STRUVE: The Theory of Stochastic Fairness - its Historical Development, Formulation and Justification. Wolfgang BALZER and Richard MATTESSICH: Formalizing the Basis of Accounting. Werner DIEDERICH: A Reconstruction of Marxian Economics. Bert HAMMINGA and Wolfgang BALZER: The Basic Structure of Neoclassical (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  44. Pablo Lorenzano (2014). What is the Status of the Hardy-Weinberg Law Within Population Genetics? Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook 17:159-172.
    The aim of this paper is to further develop van Fraassen’s diagnosis, expanding a previous analysis of the fundamental law of classical genetics and the status of the so-called ‘Mendel’s laws’.6 According to this diagnosis the Hardy-Weinberg law: 1) cannot be considered as axiom (or fundamental law) for classical population genetics, since it is a law that describes an equilibrium that 2) holds only under certain special conditions, and 3) only determines a subclass of models, 4) whose generalized form (and (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45. Pablo Lorenzano (2013). The Semantic Conception and the Structuralist View of Theories: A Critique of Suppe’s Criticisms. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (4):600-607.
    Different conceptions of scientific theories, such as the state spaces approach of Bas van Fraassen, the phase spaces approach of Frederick Suppe, the set-theoretical approach of Patrick Suppes, and the structuralist view of Joseph Sneed et al. are usually put together into one big family. In addition, the definite article is normally used, and thus we speak of the semantic conception of theories and of its different approaches . However, in The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism , starting (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. Pablo Lorenzano (2013). Los aspectos erotéticos de la ciencia: el caso de la genética. Revista de Filosofia Aurora 25 (36):13-41.
    The aim of this paper is to show, in the line suggested by Nickles (1980, 1981) and developed by Sintonen (1985, 1996), not just that the problem-solving approach and the theory approach are not incompatible, but also that the latter, in the version of the semantic conception of theories known as “structuralist view”, can be used to give precision to the problem-solving approach, by a more precise characterization of the theoretical context in which problems arise and, in this way, to (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  47. Pablo Lorenzano (2012). Base empírica global de contrastación, base empírica local de contrastación y aserción empírica de una teoría. Agora 31 (2):71-107.
    The aim of this article is to contribute to the discussion about the so-called “empirical claim” and “empirical basis” of theory testing. First, the proposals of reconceptualization of the standard notions of partial potential model, intended application and empirical claim of a theory made by Balzer (1982, 1988, 1997a, 1997b, 2006, Balzer, Lauth & Zoubek 1993) and Gähde (1996, 2002, 2008) will be first discussed. Then, the distinction between “global” and “local empirical basis” will be introduced, linking it with that (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. Pablo Lorenzano (2011). La filosofía de la ciencia y el lenguaje: relaciones cambiantes, alcances y límites. Arbor 187 (747):69-80.
    This paper consists of three sections. In the first one, some of the main developments in the philosophy of science through the xx century up to the present will be pointed out, and inserted them in the frame of some more general philosophical transformations, such as the so-called “linguistic turn” and “pragmatic turn”, respectively. In the second one, the established connection will be nuanced, from a revision of the work of a “classical” author such as Carnap. Finally, it will be (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49. Pablo Lorenzano (2011). La teorización filosófica sobre la ciencia en el siglo xx (y lo que va del xxi). Discusiones Filosóficas 12 (19):131 - 154.
    Scientific activity produces results of various types. In particular, science produces a special kind of knowledge or knowledges, assumed to be different from knowledge or common sense knowledge, from everyday experience and formulated in ordinary language; a more systematized knowledge, with greater range and accuracy, and intersubjectively controllable. To produce this kind of knowledge (or knowledge), we introduce new concepts, formulate hypotheses and laws and, ultimately, construct theories, being the result of a practice or specific activity, considering science as (perhaps), (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50. Pablo Lorenzano (2011). Philosophical theorizing about science in the twentieth century (and what has elapsed of the 21st century)). Discusiones Filosóficas 12 (19):131 - 154.
    Scientific activity produces results of various types. In particular, science produces a special kind of knowledge or knowledges, assumed to be different from knowledge or common sense knowledge, from everyday experience and formulated in ordinary language; a more systematized knowledge, with greater range and accuracy, and intersubjectively controllable. To produce this kind of knowledge (or knowledge), we introduce new concepts, formulate hypotheses and laws and, ultimately, construct theories, being the result of a practice or specific activity, considering science as (perhaps), (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 93