Contrary to the view maintained by many philosophers that science employs the deductive testing of hypotheses, observational natural sciences such as paleoanthropology and the earth sciences apply a scientific methodology consisting in the proposal of hypotheses which are best fitted to the available empirical data, i.e. which best explain the data. Observational natural sciences are predominantly empirical. They are grounded in observation, and they do not implement any Popperian deductive testing of hypotheses. Theoretical natural sciences such as mathematical physics also (...) apply inference to the best explanation for the introduction of significant concepts and hypotheses. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that in contemporary science, the use of abductive reasoning continues to be as effective as ever. (shrink)

Este artículo pretende estudiar el sentido, propósito y función de la teoría del significado de Davidson. Para ello, aclara en primer lugar, el concepto de teoría del significado y examina las características que tiene la propuesta de Davidson. Finalmente, estudia la cuestión de si el concepto de significado que Davidson nos ofrece corresponde o no a la noción intuitiva de significado.

John Worrall ofreció hace veinte años una forma no típica, supuestamente viable, de realismo científico a la que llamó realismo estructural. Se suponía que éste era una alternativa al realismo típico y una forma viable de realismo. Las cuestiones principales que discuto en este artículo son lo que denomino los dos dogmas del realismo estructural: la idea de que hay retención de estructura en el cambio teórico, y la idea de que las estructuras teóricas describen el mundo. Arthur Fine proclamó (...) que el realismo científico había muerto. Yo afirmo que el intento de Worrall de resucitar el realismo científico ha fracasado. (shrink)

The existence of causal explanations in science has been an issue of interest in Western philosophy from its very beginnings. That is the reason this work, following an idea of Mario Bunge, makes a historical review of this matter. The modern treatment of this subject takes place since the postulation by Popper and Hempel of the D-N model of scientific explanation, whose viability is scrutinized here from different points of view in the current philosophy of science. The main object of (...) this paper is to present two arguments against the possibility of causal explanations in theoretical physics. The first one concerns the existence, in certain cases, of inter-theoretical incompatibilities, and the second refers to the need to resort, in other cases, to concatenations of laws of different theories and disciplines. The final conclusion will be the defence of a form of theoretical explanation, which follows the Popper-Hempel model, but devoid of any ontological and metaphysical connotations. (shrink)

Twenty years ago John Worrall offered an alleged non-standard viable form of scientific realism under the name structural realism. Structural realism was supposed to be both an alternative to standard scientific realism and a viable form of realism. The central questions addressed in this paper are what I call the two dogmas of structural realism: the idea that there is structure retention across theory change, and the idea that theoretical structures describe the world. Arthur Fine proclaimed that scientific realism was (...) dead. I claim that Worrall's attempt to bring scientific realism back to life has failed. John Worrall ofreció hace veinte años una forma no típica, supuestamente viable, de realismo científico a la que llamó realismo estructural. Se suponía que éste era una alternativa al realismo típico y una forma viable de realismo. Las cuestiones principales que discuto en este artículo son lo que denomino los dos dogmas del realismo estructural: la idea de que hay retención de estructura en el cambio teórico, y la idea de que las estructuras teóricas describen el mundo. Arthur Fine proclamó que el realismo científico había muerto. Yo afirmo que el intento de Worrall de resucitar el realismo científico ha fracasado. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to elucidate the question of whether Newtonian mechanics can be derived from relativity theory. Physicists agree that classical mechanics constitutes a limiting case of relativity theory. By contrast, philosophers of science like Kuhn and Feyerabend affirm that classical mechanics cannot be deduced from relativity theory because of the incommensurability between both theories; thus what we obtain when we take the limit c → ∞ in relativistic mechanics cannot be Newtonian mechanics sensu stricto. In this (...) paper I focus on the alleged change of reference of the term mass in the transition from one theory to the other. Contradicting Kuhn and Feyerabend, special relativity theory supports the view that the mass of an object is a characteristic property of the object, that it has the same value in whatever frame of reference it is measured, and that it does not depend on whether the object is in motion or at rest. Thus mass preserves the reference through the change of theory, and the existence of a Newtonian limit of relativity theory provides a good example of the rationality of theory change in mathematical physics. (shrink)

The use of metaphors and other tropes in science receives nowadays growing attention among the philosophers of science, mainly when related to theoretical models. In this paper I analyse basically issues like the cognitive value of scientific metaphors, the role played by analogy in the constructions of metaphors, and, mainly, the question of whether theoretical models are metaphors. Throughout the analysis of different current approaches to the relationships between metaphors and models in science, I claim that the analogy only plays (...) a fundamental role in the metaphorical proposals in science after analogue theoretical models are at our disposal. This nonetheless does not preclude for the analogy to become sometimes a guide in scientific creativity. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to discuss the philosophical viability of the incommensurability doctrine. In particular I am going to analyse the thesis that changes in meaning of the terms shared by competing theories after a scientific revolution imply reference changes as well. The idea that terms change radically their meanings will be discussed, and the alleged incommensurability of mass will be criticized in detail. Relativity theory, which has provided most of the characteristic examples of incommensurability, becomes also the (...) realm in which to put to the test the viability of this doctrine. My own proposal on incommensurability amounts to restricting its validity to the domain of worldviews, and last to the theoretical vocabulary. I finally suggest that the incommensurability problem disappears in the framework of an instrumentalist point of view on theories and theoretical models From this viewpoint such worldviews become merely useful tools in order to deal with Nature. (shrink)

Andrés Rivadulla argues for an instrumentalist approach to the use of theoretical models in the physical sciences, which, on his view, have not to be conceived of as intended representations of the phenomena, but just as useful tools for explaining and predicting those phenomena. He analyses two examples of theoretical models employed for those aims. The first one is the supernova model, intended mainly as explanatory. The second one is the atomic central field shell model, where the postulated (...) internal structure for atoms—their electronic configuration- made the prediction and discovery of new noble gases possible. He concludes that theoretical models can be regarded as artifacts designed with the specific purpose of facilitating calculations. (shrink)

The probability calculus is very often used in the philosophy of science in order to support or to analyse epistemological points of view. The aim of this paper is to present in a summary the usual axioms of this calculus, as weIl as its most common consequences and theorems, which the philosopher of science in his arguments ressorts to.

Transcendental epistemology of physics Content Type Journal Article Pages 1-3 DOI 10.1007/s11016-010-9507-z Authors Andrés Rivadulla, Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, Complutense University, 28040 Madrid, Spain Journal Metascience Online ISSN 1467-9981 Print ISSN 0815-0796.

This article claims the validity of abductive reasoning, or inference to the best explanation, as a practice of discovery of explanatory scientific hypotheses. Along the way to achieve this objective I present here a series of arguments that question the feasibility of Bayesianism as a theory of scientific confirmation. Having solved this issue, I resort to an episode of contemporary astrocosmology that I interpret as an eloquent example of the effectiveness of abductive methodology in contemporary theoretical physics.

La inconmensurabilidad ha sido durante unos cuarenta años una de las cuestiones más discutidas de la filosofía contemporánea de la ciencia. Para abordarla asumo la caracterización de Howard Sankey de la misma como “la tesis de que el contenido de algunas teorías científicas alternativas es incomparable debido a fallos de traducción en el vocabulario que emplean las teorías”. Este tipo de incomparabilidad debería impedir, por ejemplo, la derivación de la mecánica newtoniana a partir de la teoría de la relatividad, según (...) mantiene Thomas Kuhn. Como yo mismo me he ocupado de la comparación de los conceptos newtoniano y einsteiniano de masa en Rivadulla, en este artículo breve me centro en la comparabilidad de teorías de la física teórica contemporánea.Así, en lugar de tratar la cuestión de si las teorías de la física contemporánea son decididamente inconmensurables entre sí, el objeto principal de este artículo es proporcionar una respuesta al problema de si tiene sentido pensar sobre la inconmensurabilidad entre teorías físicas contemporáneas, dada su obvia comparabilidad. (shrink)

Incommensurability has been for about forty years one of the most discussed topics on the contemporary philosophy of science. In order to tackle this issue I assume Howard Sankey’s characterization of incommensurability as “the thesis that the content of some alternative scientific theories is incomparable due to translation failure between the vocabulary the theories employ”. This kind of incomparability should pre- vent for instance the derivation of Newtonian mechanics from relativity theory, as Thomas Kuhn maintains. Since I have myself been (...) concerned with the comparison of Newtonian and Einsteinian mass concepts in Rivadulla, I focus in this short paper on the comparability of theories of contemporary theoretical physics.Thus, instead of dealing with the question of whether the theories of contemporary physics are definitely incommensurable with each other, the main aim of this paper is to provide an answer to the question of whether it makes any sense to think about the in- commensurability between contemporary physical theories, due to their obvious comparability. (shrink)

The use of metaphors and other tropes in science receives nowadays growing attention among the philosophers of science, mainly when related to theoretical models. In this paper I analyse basically issues like the cognitive value of scientific metaphors, the role played by analogy in the constructions of metaphors, and, mainly, the question of whether theoretical models are metaphors. Throughout the analysis of different current approaches to the relationships between metaphors and models in science, I claim that the analogy only plays (...) a fundamental role in the metaphorical proposals in science after analogue theoretical models are at our disposal. This nonetheless does not preclude for the analogy to become sometimes a guide in scientific creativity. (shrink)

After showing by means of several examples the significant role that standard abduction plays both in observational and in theoretical natural sciences, I introduce in this paper preduction as a deductive discovery strategy. I argue that deductive reasoning can be extended to the context of discovery of theoretical natural sciences, such as mathematical physics, and I use the term theoretical preduction to denote the way of reasoning that consists in the implementation of deductive reasoning in scientific creativity. Moreover, standard abduction (...) is not always sufficient to provide best explanations in science. It is widely known that during the 1960s, abduction was identified as a form of inference to the best explanation. But when the explanation of many natural phenomena requires more than spontaneous acts of creativity, such as those that one might imagine in the cases of Kepler, Darwin or Wegener, much mathematical work has to be done in addition in order to advance justified theoretical explanations. In those cases, the explanation takes place more preductivo. I term sophisticated abduction the corresponding form of inference to the best explanation. (shrink)

This paper concerns the question whether the rational reconstruction of science provided by the philosophy of science is partly descriptive and partly normative task. To this respect we offer a general characterization of the concept of science and observe then briefly the relations between the history and the philosophy of science. The widely extended view that there cannot be a history of science without an underIying philosophy suggests the problem whether it can exist a rational reconstruction of science independently from (...) any theory about the science. On the answer to this question depends that we could conceive the philosophy of science as a discipline which combines descriptive (or empirical) with normative eIements. (shrink)

This paper concerns the question whether the rational reconstruction of science provided by the philosophy of science is partly descriptive and partly normative task. To this respect we offer a general characterization of the concept of science and observe then briefly the relations between the history and the philosophy of science. The widely extended view that there cannot be a history of science without an underIying philosophy suggests the problem whether it can exist a rational reconstruction of science independently from (...) any theory about the science. On the answer to this question depends that we could conceive the philosophy of science as a discipline which combines descriptive with normative eIements. (shrink)

This paper tries to simplify the situation in modern epistemology, where the scientific method seems to be accomplished by different scientific methodologies. this is partially done by asserting that the popperian critical methodology can be seen as a special case of bayesianism. to this effect, it is firstly argued, that popper's corroboration degree measures the probabilistic support that evidence lends to universal hypotheses. then it is affirmed, that popper and miller have not established the impossibility of inductive probability. and it (...) is finally claimed, that bayesian probabilistic support encompasses popper's corroboration concept. (shrink)

This paper deals with meta-statistical questions concerning frequentist statistics. In Sections 2 to 4 I analyse the dispute between Fisher and Neyman on the so called logic of statistical inference, a polemic that has been concomitant of the development of mathematical statistics. My conclusion is that, whenever mathematical statistics makes it possible to draw inferences, it only uses deductive reasoning. Therefore I reject Fisher's inductive approach to the statistical estimation theory and adhere to Neyman's deductive one. On the other hand, (...) I assert that Neyman-Pearson's testing theory, as well as Fisher's tests of significance, properly belong to decision theory, not to logic, neither deductive nor inductive. I then also disagree with Costantini's view of Fisher's testing model as a theory of hypothetico-deductive inferences.In Section 5 I disapprove Hacking1's evidentialists criticisms of the Neyman-Pearson's theory of statistics (NPT), as well as Hacking2's interpretation of NPT as a theory of probable inference. In both cases Hacking misses the point. I conclude, by claiming that Mayo's conception of the Neyman-Pearson's testing theory, as a model of learning from experience, does not purport any advantages over Neyman's behavioristic model. (shrink)

Normal 0 21 false false false ES X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabla normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} The main aim of this paper is to argue on behalf of instrumentalism in the philosophy of physics. Following Theo Kuipers’ terminology of domain extension and domain restriction I claim, contradicting him, that the methodology of domain (...) revision can only support an antirealist approach to the theory of physics. The existence of both extensions and restrictions of the application domain of theoretical models and the theoretical incompatibility between successive theories provide respectively with minor and major arguments for instrumentalism in physics. (shrink)