David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 39 (1):1-19 (1972)
Achinstein, Putnam, and others have urged the rejection of the received view on theories (which construes theories as axiomatic calculi where theoretical terms are given partial observational interpretations by correspondence rules) because (i) the notion of partial interpretation cannot be given precise formulation, and (ii) the observational-theoretical distinction cannot be drawn satisfactorily. I try to show that these are the wrong reasons for rejecting the received view since (i) is false and it is virtually impossible to demonstrate the truth of (ii). Nonetheless, the received view should be rejected because it obscures a number of epistemologically important features of scientific theorizing. I show this by sketching an alternative analysis which reveals some of these features and gives a more faithful picture of scientific theorizing
|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
Not By Me (1983). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory: A Semantic Approach. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 14 (3):215-229.
Craig DeLancey (2007). Phenomenal Experience and the Measure of Information. Erkenntnis 66 (3):329-352.
Luigi Scorzato (2013). On the Role of Simplicity in Science. Synthese 190 (14):2867-2895.
James R. Griesemer (1990). Modeling in the Museum: On the Role of Remnant Models in the Work of Joseph Grinnell. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 5 (1):3-36.
Elisabeth A. Lloyd (1987). Confirmation of Ecological and Evolutionary Models. Biology and Philosophy 2 (3):277-293.
Similar books and articles
Sebastian Lutz (2012). On a Straw Man in the Philosophy of Science: A Defense of the Received View. Hopos 2 (1):77–120.
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.
Hans Halvorson (2012). What Scientific Theories Could Not Be. Philosophy of Science 79 (2):183-206.
Demetris P. Portides (2005). Scientific Models and the Semantic View of Scientific Theories. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1287-1298.
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.
Matti Eklund (2000). The Aims of Logical Empiricism As a Philosophy of Science. Acta Analytica 15 (25):137-59.
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.
Reidar Krummradt Lie (1986). The 'Borderzone Zone' Controversy a Study of Theory Structure in Biomedicine. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 7 (3).
Frederick Suppe (2000). Understanding Scientific Theories: An Assessment of Developments, 1969-1998. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):115.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads85 ( #19,223 of 1,681,636 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #29,446 of 1,681,636 )
How can I increase my downloads?