David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (4):767-777 (2004)
there be an objective modal distinction between the observable and the unobservable.’ My intent is to counter Ladyman's claim that the irreducibly modal character of empirical adequacy is something that is ‘really wrong with constructive empiricism’. I argue that disposition concepts refer to non-modal properties of types rather than to modal properties of tokens of those types. Solubility, for example, is an ‘occurrent’, though unobservable, property of a type of substance (involving the structure of associated atoms); and observability is, similarly, an ‘occurrent’, though unobservable, property of a type of event (involving the structure of associated physical systems). Empirical adequacy, like truth, is an objective, semantic notion; the empirical adequacy of a theory depends upon all actual tokens of the relevant observable type, not just upon the tokens that have actually been observed. Introduction The typical character of disposition concepts Confirmational versus semantic empirical adequacy Conclusion.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Prasanta S. Bandyopadhyay, Mark Greenwood, Gordon Brittan & Ken A. Aho (2014). Empiricism and/or Instrumentalism? Erkenntnis 79 (S5):1019-1041.
Similar books and articles
Bas C. van Fraassen (2001). Constructive Empiricism Now. Philosophical Studies 106 (1-2):151 - 170.
Jamin Asay (2009). Constructive Empiricism and Deflationary Truth. Philosophy of Science 76 (4):423-443.
Valerie Gray Hardcastle (1994). The Image of Observables. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (2):585-597.
Peter Lipton (2006). What Can Bas Believe? Musgrave and Van Fraassen on Observability. Analysis 66 (3):226 - 233.
Warren Bourgeois (1987). On Rejecting Foss's Image of Van Fraassen. Philosophy of Science 54 (2):303-308.
Elliott Sober (1985). Constructive Empiricism and the Problem of Aboutness. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 36 (1):11-18.
James Ladyman (2004). Constructive Empiricism and Modal Metaphysics: A Reply to Monton and Van Fraassen. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (4):755-765.
Paul Dicken (2007). Constructive Empiricism and the Metaphysics of Modality. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58 (3):605 - 612.
James Ladyman (2000). What's Really Wrong with Constructive Empiricism? Van Fraassen and the Metaphysics of Modality. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (4):837-856.
Bradley Monton & Bas C. van Fraassen (2003). Constructive Empiricism and Modal Nominalism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54 (3):405-422.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads92 ( #30,134 of 1,725,584 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #72,319 of 1,725,584 )
How can I increase my downloads?