Artiklis arendatakse alternatiivset kontseptsiooni niihästi traditsioonilisele füüsikakesksele teadusliku teooria käsitlusele kui ka seisukohale, et füüsikateooriat ei saa teadusfilosoofias mõista teadusliku teooria mudelina, sest erinevates teadustes on teooriad oma loomult erinevad. Ollakse seisukohal, et teaduslik teooria on ikkagi teadusfilosoofia kategooriana teadusliku distsipliini eripärast sõltumatu. Käsitletakse põhiliselt kahte punkti: (1) miks on teadusfilosoofias põhjust kritiseerida traditsioonilist, füüsika põhjal saadud ettekujutust teaduslikust teooriast? (2) miks ei ole põhjendatud seisukoht, et nt keemias on teaduslik teooria (nt klassikaline keemilise struktuuri teooria) oma loomult füüsikateooriast (nt (...) klassikalisest mehhaanikast) erinev? Traditsioonilise füüsikakeskse lähenemisviisi puhul ei ole piisavalt uuritud, miks õieti füüsikateooria on saanud teadusliku teooria etaloniks. Teoreetilise füüsika keskne teadusekontseptsioon on olnud ühekülgselt orienteeritudmatemaatikale ja loogikale. Kui aga lähtuda teooriast kui mudelite populatsioonist, nagu Ronald Giere on seda teinud ka klassikalise mehhaanika - füüsikakeskse teooriakäsituse traditsioonilise näite - korral, siis osutub see teooriakäsitus tõepoolest invariantseks teatavale tunnetustüübile, mida on alust nimetada teaduslikuks ja mis on selgesti omane ka nt keemiale. In this paper an alternative conception is proposed both to (1) the traditional physics-based conception of scientific theory, and (2) the view that a physical theory cannot be regarded as the model for scientific theory in philosophy of science in general because scientific theories are discipline-dependent. It is argued that scientific theory as a category of philosophy of science is independent of a particular scientific discipline. The main focus of the paper is on two questions: (1) Why is the traditional physics-based conception of scientific theory subject to criticism in philosophy of science? (2) Why is it unjustified to consider a scientific theory in chemistry (e.g., the classical chemical structure theory, which is probably the most characteristic theory of chemistry) to be different in character from a physical theory (e.g., classical mechanics, which is a prototypical example of a theory in the philosophy of science)? In case of the traditional physics-based approach not enough research has been done as to why theories of physics have become the etalon of scientific theory. The accepted view of science, centered on theoretical physics, has been one-sidedly oriented towards mathematics and logic. But when proceeding from a conception of a scientific theory as a population of models, as Ronald Giere has done for the case of classical mechanics - the traditional example of a physical theory -, this conception of a theory really does prove the invariance of a certain type of cognition that can justifiably be called scientific and that is clearly characteristic of, e.g., chemistry as well. (shrink)

Grice’i algne vahetegemine “‘tähendamise’ naturaalse tähenduse” ja “‘tähendamise’mittenaturaalse tähenduse” vahel osutab loomulikule pingele ‘naturaalse’ ja ‘semantilise’vahel — kui ‘semantilise’ puhul on oluline, et see saab olla väär või ekslik,siis ‘naturaalse’ puhul väärus ja ekslikkus välistatakse. Artikli taotluseks on näidata, et juhul kui naturaalset tõlgendada kui ‘vastavalt füüsikaseadustele’, siis on seevastasseis vältimatu, samas kui tõlgenduse ‘nagu bioloogias’ korral oleneb ebakõlasuurus konkreetsest semantikateooriast, mida ollakse valmis omaks võtma. Viimases punktismööndakse, et kuigi loosung ‘ma suudan eksida’ on immuunne naturalistlikurünnaku vastu kujul ‘sa eksid, (...) kui seda väidad’, saab sellele siiski ette heitaekslikku arusaama ekslikkusest, iseäranis juhul, kui see tugineb ettekujutusele privaatsestkogemusest, nagu antud artiklis. Vastusena tavapärasele kriitikale, nagu eisaaks privaatsed kogemused keeles mingit rolli etendada, esitatakse hüpotees, mis (tuginedes lõdvalt Harry Collinsi eristusele) pakub välja võimaluse, et üksnes interaktiivnekeeleline pädevus ei sõltu privaatsetest kogemustest, samas kui kontributiivne pädevus sõltub. Grice's initial distinction between "natural sense of 'means'" and "nonnatural sense of 'means'" indicates a natural tension between 'natural' and 'semantics'-the former cannot be wrong whereas the latter can. The paper argues that if `natural' is understood as 'according to physics' this opposition is principal, whereas if it is understood as 'like in biology' the degree of discord depends on particular theory of 'semantics' one is ready to adopt. In the last section of the paper it is admitted that, although the slogan 'I am able to be wrong' should be immune to a naturalist refutation of the form 'you are wrong saying this', it may be still criticized for introducing a wrong kind of wrongness, e.g. the one that relies on subject's private episodes (the preferred option in this paper). As a reply to a standard critique against any role of private episodes in language, a preliminary hypothesis is put forward that (relying loosely on Harry Collins' distinction) it is only the interactive linguistic expertise that does not depend on private episodes, whereas the contributive linguistic expertise does. (shrink)

Reminiscences of Peter, by P. Oppenheim.--Natural kinds, by W. V. Quine.--Inductive independence and the paradoxes of confirmation, by J. Hintikka.--Partial entailment as a basis for inductive logic, by W. C. Salmon.--Are there non-deductive logics?, by W. Sellars.--Statistical explanation vs. statistical inference, by R. C. Jeffre--Newcomb's problem and two principles of choice, by R. Nozick.--The meaning of time, by A. Grünbaum.--Lawfulness as mind-dependent, by N. Rescher.--Events and their descriptions: some considerations, by J. Kim.--The individuation of events, by D. Davidson.--On properties, by (...) H. Putnam.--A method for avoiding the Curry paradox, by F. B. Fitch.--Publications (1934-1969) by Carl G. Hempel (p. [266]-270). (shrink)

Among the most outstanding discoveries of the last century is one that is not quite as momentous as the theory of relativity or cybernetics. It may even still be enigmatic. It has no one single author, it is not expressed in a single formula, conception, or invention. Nonetheless it is worth all the others combined.

Talks collected from lectures given by Bennett with Gurdjieff's approval, to help people understand All and Everything: Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson. Bennett regarded Gurdjieff's All and Everything as a work of superhuman genius.