Skip to main content
Log in

Syntacticism versus semanticism: Another attempt at dissolution

  • Published:
Biology and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References to discussion

  • Beatty, J.: 1980, ‘Optimal-design Models and the Strategy of Model Building in Evolutionary Biology’, Philosophy of Science 47, 532–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, J.: 1981, ‘What's Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory?’, in P. D. Asquith and R. N. Giere (eds.), PSA 1980 Vol. 2, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, pp. 397–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckner, M.: The Biological Way of Thought, Cambridge University Press, London.

  • Brandon, R.: 1978, ‘Adaptation and Evolutionary Theory’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science9, 181–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N.: 1979, Understanding Scientific Reasoning, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goudge, T. A.: 1961, The Ascent of Life, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R. C.: 1974, The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E.: 1984, ‘A Semantic Approach to the Structure of Population Genetics’, Philosophy of Science 51, 242–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E. A.: 1986, ‘Evaluation of Evidence in Group Selection Debates’, PSA 1986 Vol. 1, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E. A.: 1987, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, S., and Beatty, J.: 1979, ‘The Propensity Interpretaton of Fitness’, Philosophy of Science46, 263–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H.: 1962, ‘What Theories Are Not’, in E. Nagel, P. Suppes, and A. Tarski (eds.), Logic Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 240–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roughgarden, J.: 1979, Theory of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology: an Introduction, Macmillan, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M.: 1970, ‘Are there Laws in Biology?’, Australian Journal of Philosophy 48, 234–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M.: 1973, The Philosophy of Biology, London, Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M.: 1977, ‘Is Biology Different from Physics?’, in R. Colodny (ed.), Logic Laws, and Life: Some Philosophical Implications, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 89–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M.: 1981, Is Science Sexist?, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffner, K.: 1969, ‘Correspondence Rules’, Philosophy of Science 36, 280–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, M.: 1971, The Matter of Life, Yale University Press, New Haven and London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. J. C.: 1963, Philosophy and Scientific Realism, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E.: 1984, The Nature of Selection. Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmüller, W.: 1973, Probleme und Resultate der Wissenschaftstheorie und Analytischen Philosophie. Band II. Theorie und Erfahrung. Zweiter Halbband. Theorienstrukturen und Theoriendynamik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmüller, W.: 1979, The Structuralist View of Theories. A Possible Analogue of the Bourbaki Programme in Physical Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppe, F.: 1972, ‘What's Wrong with the Received View on the Structure of Scientific Theories?’, Philosophy of Science 39, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppe, F.: 1977, The Structure of Scientific Theories, 2nd ed., University of Illinois Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppes, P.: 1962, ‘Models of Data’, in E. Nagel, P. Suppes, and A. Tarski (eds.), Logic Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 252–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P.: 1983, ‘The Structure of Evolutionary Theory: A Semantic Approach’, Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 14, 215–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P.: 1985, ‘Sociobiological Explantion and the Testability of Sociobiological Theory’, in J. H. Fetzer (ed.), Sociobiology and Epistemology, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 201–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P.: 1986, ‘The Interaction of Theories and the Semantic Conception of Evolutionary Theory’, Philosophica 37, 73–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Fraassen, B. C.: 1972, ‘A Formal Approach to the Philosophy of Science’ in R. Colodny (ed.), Paradigms and Paradoxes, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 303–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Fraassen, B. C.: 1980, The Scientific Image, Oxford University Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Steen, W. J.: 1972, ‘Ecology, Evolution and Explanatory Patterns in Biology’, J. Theor. Biol. 36, 593–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. B.: 1970, ‘Deducing the Consequences of Evolution: A Mathematical Model’, J. Theor. Biol. 29, 343–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt, W.: 1980, ‘Reductionist Research Strategies and their Biases in the Units of Selection Controversy’, in T. Nickles (ed.), Scientific Discovery: Case Studies, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 213–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt, W.: 1981, ‘Units of Selection and the Structure of the Multi-level Genome’, PSA 1980 Vol. 2, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sloep, P.B., van der Steen, W.J. Syntacticism versus semanticism: Another attempt at dissolution. Biol Philos 2, 33–41 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00127563

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00127563

Navigation