The frame model was developed in cognitive psychology and imported into the philosophy of science in order to provide representations of scientific concepts and conceptual taxonomies. The aim of this article is to show that beside the representation of scientific concepts the frame model is an efficient instrument to represent and analyze scientific theories. That is, we aim to establish the frame model as a representation tool for the structure of theories within the philosophy of science. For this, we will (...) develop the notion of a theory frame and distinguish between theory frames for qualitative theories in which scientific measurement is based on nominal scales and theory frames for quantitative theories in which measurement is based on ratio scales. In three case studies, we will apply frames to a psychological, a linguistic, and a physical theory, thereby showing that the frame model is a powerful and intuitively accessible instrument to analyze the laws of scientific theories, the determination of theoretical concepts, the explanatory role of theoretical concepts, the abductive introduction of a new theoretical concept, the distinction between the core and the periphery of a theory, the diachronic development of a theory, and the distinction between qualitative and quantitative scientific concepts. Finally, we will provide a comparison to the structuralist view of theories, one of the most elaborated and applied models of theory representation. (shrink)

According to a seminal paper by Barsalou , frames are attribute-value-matrices for representing exemplars or concepts. Frames have been used as a tool for reconstructing scientific concepts as well as conceptual change within scientific revolutions . In the frame-based representations of scientific concepts developed so far the semantic content of concepts is determined by a set of attribute-specific values. This way of representing semantic content works best for prototype concepts and defined concepts of a conceptual taxonomy satisfying the no-overlap principle. (...) In addition to the semantic content of prototype concepts and defined concepts, frames can also contain empirical knowledge that is represented as constraints between the values of the frame. Beside prototype concepts and defined concepts, theoretical concepts that are multiply operationalized play an important role in science. However, so far no frame-based representation of theoretical concepts has been proposed. In this paper, it will be shown that theoretical concepts can be represented by frames and that frame-based representations of prototype concepts and defined concepts have another structure than frame-based representations of theoretical concepts. In order to explicate this difference, we will develop a frame-based method for representing all three kinds of concepts by means of mathematical graph-theory. One important consequence will be that the constraints of a frame representing a theoretical concept are entailed by the structure of the frame, as opposed to a frame representing defined or prototype concepts. (shrink)

In the philosophy of science, the frame model is used in order to represent and analyze scientific concepts and conceptual change. However, the potential of the frame model is far from being fully exploited: Up to now, the frame model is only applied to a rather small set of different kinds of concepts and important advantages of the frame model for reconstructing and analyzing concepts have been neglected. In this article, we will essentially extend the frame model in the following (...) way: We will develop a frame-based approach for representing a comprehensive class of different kinds of concepts including conjunctively and disjunctively defined concepts, family resemblance concepts, prototype concepts, operationalized concepts, dual concepts integrating two different ways of concept determination, and theoretical concepts. In order to do so, we will define different kinds of frames with respect to the logical structure of the kind of concept that is represented by a particular frame. We will exemplify our approach by means of ten frames applied to standard cases of conceptual analyses in philosophy and cognitive science as well as to scientific concepts of political science, psychology, linguistics and physics. (shrink)

Livengood and Sytsma (2020) challenge the Compositionality Constraint of Actual Causation (CCAC), according to which each intermediary of a causal chain is an effect of its predecessor and a cause of its successor link. In several studies, they find support for their hypothesis that the CCAC is not in accordance with ordinary causal attributions of laypeople. We argue that there are three interrelated problems in their studies’ design that we call the Causality-Responsibility Confusion (CRC), the Intermediary-Ontology Confusion (IOC), and the (...) Cause-End Questioning (CEQ). Avoiding the CRC, the IOC, and the CEQ leads to strong empirical support for the CCAC. (shrink)

​Nach der Auffassung Thomas S. Kuhns ist in einer wissenschaftlichen Disziplin, die einen bestimmten Reifegrad erreicht hat, stets genau ein Paradigma vorherrschend, welches die normalwissenschaftliche Entwicklung bestimmt. In diesem Sammelband wird untersucht, ob im Widerspruch zu Kuhn Paradigmenkonstellationen existieren, in denen mehrere Paradigmen über einen langen Zeitraum parallel existieren und unterschiedliche, sich z.T. widersprechende Erklärungsmuster für dieselben Gegenstandsbereiche bereitstellen. Zu diesem Zweck haben die Herausgeber Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler der Soziologie, Physik, Musikpädagogik, Erziehungs-, Politik-, Sprach-, Kultur- und Sportwissenschaft eingeladen, die Paradigmenstrukturen (...) ihrer Wissenschaften anhand eines einheitlichen Begriffsapparates zu analysieren. Es stellt sich heraus, dass sich Kuhns Position als nicht adäquat erweist und durch ein differenzierteres Wissenschaftsverständnis abgelöst werden muss. (shrink)

Verschwörungserzählungen sind ein fortdauernd prominentes Thema in der nachrichtlichen Berichterstattung und treten immer wieder in Zusammenhang mit Bewegungen auf, die demokratische Strukturen zu untergraben versuchen. In der aktuellen Diskussion um Verschwörungserzählungen dominieren psychologische, politische, kultur- und sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven. Philosophische Zugänge hingegen scheinen dabei unterrepräsentiert zu sein. Der hier vorliegende Schwerpunkt „Verschwörungserzählungen“ soll einen Beitrag dazu leisten, diesem Mangel abzuhelfen, und das Phänomen der Verschwörungserzählungen aus verschiedenen Perspektiven insbesondere der Praktischen Philosophie zu beleuchten.

In this article, I will use the frame-model to analyze different kinds of concept change. Mainly, I will use frames to distinguish between what I will call inter-conceptual change and intra-conceptual change as well as between conceptual structure change and conceptual content change. Further, I will introduce the notion of conceptual enrichment as opposed to conceptual change. To achieve these goals, I will expand the frame-model where necessary and exemplify the proposed extensions by means of a frame-based analysis of John (...) L. Austin’s distinction between constative and performative utterances. (shrink)

In the Kuhnian and Post-Kuhnian Philosophy of Science, it is widely accepted that scientific revolutions always involve the replacement of an old paradigm by a new paradigm. This article attempts to refute this assumption by showing that there are paradigm-constellations that conform to the relation of a scientific revolution in a Kuhnian sense without a paradigm-replacement occurring. The paradigms investigated here are the linguistic paradigms of Generative Grammar and Construction Grammar that, contrary to Kuhn’s conception of a sequence of paradigm-replacements, (...) are reconstructed as coexisting competing paradigms. By choosing linguistic paradigms, Kuhn’s assumption that paradigm-led research takes place only in the natural sciences is implicitly challenged, and an insight into linguistic theory-construction largely underrepresented in the philosophy of science is given. (shrink)