What’s Wrong with the Received View on the Structure of Scientific Theories?

Philosophy of Science 39 (1):1-19 (1972)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 89,560

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

On a Straw Man in the Philosophy of Science - A Defense of the Received View.Sebastian Lutz - 2012 - Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 2 (1):77–120.
What’s Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory?John Beatty - 1980 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:397 - 426.
What Scientific Theories Could Not Be.Hans Halvorson - 2012 - Philosophy of Science 79 (2):183-206.
Scientific models, partial structures and the new received view of theories. [REVIEW]Gabriele Contessa - 2006 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37 (2):370-377.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
232 (#77,075)

6 months
9 (#142,617)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

What Was the Syntax‐Semantics Debate in the Philosophy of Science About?Sebastian Lutz - 2017 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 95 (2):319-352.
Scientific Theories.Hans Halvorson - 2016 - In Paul Humphreys (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science. Oxford University Press. pp. 585-608.
The cognitive structure of scientific theories.Ronald N. Giere - 1994 - Philosophy of Science 61 (2):276-296.

View all 45 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Models and Analogies in Science.Mary B. Hesse - 1966 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 3 (3):190-191.
The methodological character of theoretical concepts.R. Carnap - 1956 - Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 1 (1):38--76.
Methods of Logic.P. L. Heath & Willard Van Orman Quine - 1955 - Philosophical Quarterly 5 (21):376.

View all 8 references / Add more references