Journal of Philosophy 95 (2):53-72 (1998)

Authors
Ronald Endicott
North Carolina State University
Abstract
I critically evaluate the influential new wave account of theory reduction in science developed by Paul Churchland and Clifford Hooker. First, I cast doubt on claims that the new wave account enjoys a number of theoretical virtues over its competitors, such as the ability to represent how false theories are reduced by true theories. Second, I argue that the genuinely novel claim that a corrected theory must be specified entirely by terms from the basic reducing theory is in fact too restrictive for scientific practice and should be rejected. Basic theories co-evolve with nonbasic theories in a mutually interactive way, and thus the basic theories incorporate the concepts and concerns of nonbasic theories. Third, I show that once its ontological consequences are duly noted, the reductive part the new wave account collapses into the classical theory developed within the logical empiricist tradition. As such, it still falls prey to standard anti-reductionist argument based upon multiple realizability and the cross-classification of special science and physical science terms.
Keywords Theory Reduction  Churchland, P  Hooker, C  Bickle, J.
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 0022-362X
DOI jphil199895226
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Reduction, Emergence, and Renormalization.Jeremy Butterfield - 2014 - Journal of Philosophy 111 (1):5-49.

View all 20 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
803 ( #5,330 of 2,349,382 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
42 ( #16,231 of 2,349,382 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes