Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:37:29.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Global Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

C. A. Hooker
C. A. Hooker*
Affiliation:
The University of Western Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contrary to the Empiricist model of science, successful sufficiently fundamental theories not only fit and unify their data fields but also prescribe the general terms in which relevantly to describe observation; specify what is and is not observable; specify the conditions under which what is observable, is observable; specify the instrumental means and reliability by which what is measurable is measured; specify what is causally, statistically, and merely accidentally connected. Moreover, such theories typically require all or most of the entire remainder of science to be properly applied in any given situation and theoreticians' models play a crucial role in such applications. (I call these respectively the internal and external globalnesses of theories.) A discussion of the consequences of these global features of theories for philosophy of science is offered in the context of specific examples and a structural model for science.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , June 1975 , pp. 152 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bohm, D. The Special Theory of Relativity. New York: W. A. Benjamin, 1965.Google Scholar
Bunge, M. Scientific Research. Vols. I and II. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1967.10.1007/978-3-642-48135-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunge, M. Foundations of Physics. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1967.10.1007/978-3-642-49287-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. The Logical Structure of the World and Pseudo-Problems in Philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. “The Methodological Character of Theoretical Concepts.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. I. Edited by Feigl, H. and Scriven, M. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. “Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. III. Edited by Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. “Replies to Criticism.” In Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. II. Edited by Cohen, R. S. and Wartofsky, M. W. New York: Humanities Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. “Problems of Empiricism.” In Beyond the Edge of Certainty. Edited by Colodny, R. G. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. “Problems of Empiricism II.” In The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories. Vol. IV. Edited by Colodny, R. G. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Graves, J. C. The Conceptual Foundations of Contemporary Relativity Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Harré, R. The Principles of Scientific Thinking. London: Macmillan, 1970.10.1007/978-1-349-81592-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. “The Theoretician's Dilemma.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. II. Edited by Feigl, H. and Scriven, M. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1958.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. B. “A Self-Correcting Observation Language.” In Logic, Methodology and the Philosophy of Science. Vol. III. Edited by van Root Selaar, B. and Staal, J. F. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1968.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. B. “Is There an Observation Language?” In The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories. Edited by Colodny, R. G. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. B. Models and Analogies in Science. London: Sheed and Ward, 1963.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. B. Forces and Fields. Totowa, New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams and Cole, 1965.Google Scholar
Hooker, C. A. “The Secondary Qualities and Systematic Philosophy.” Ph.D. Thesis, York University, Canada, 1970.Google Scholar
Hooker, C. A. “Systematic Realism.” Synthese 26 (1974): 409–498.10.1007/BF00883106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, C. A. “A Realist Doctrine of Perception.” (To appear in a forthcoming volume of the Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science.)Google Scholar
Hooker, C. A. “A Metaphysician's Resolution of the Paradox of the Ravens.” (To appear.)Google Scholar
Hooker, C. A. “The Nature of Quantum Mechanical Reality: Einstein vs. Bohr.” In Paradigms and Paradoxes. Edited by Colodny, R. G. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Hooker, C. A. “Physics and Metaphysics: A Prolegomenon for the Riddles of Quantum Theory.” In [24].Google Scholar
Hooker, C. A. (ed.). Contemporary Research in the Foundations and Philosophy of Quantum Theory. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1973.10.1007/978-94-010-2534-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, C. A. “Sharp and the EPR Paradox.” Philosophy of Science 38 (1971): 224–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, C. A. “The Relational Doctrines of Space and Time.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 22 (1971): 97–130.10.1093/bjps/22.2.97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, C. A. “Craigian Transcriptionism.” American Philosophical Quarterly 5 (1968): 152–163.Google Scholar
Hooker, C. A. “Empiricism, Perception and Conceptual Change.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy III (1973): 59–75.10.1080/00455091.1973.10716070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, C. A. “Critical Notice: Against Method, P. K. Feyerabend.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1 (1972): 489–509.10.1080/00455091.1972.10716035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, C. A. “The Metaphysics of Science: Atoms vs. Plena.” International Logic Review 9 (1974).Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In [33].Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.10.1017/CBO9781139171434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E. The Structure of Science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961.10.1119/1.1937571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. Word and Object. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, 1964.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. From a Logical Point of View. New York: Harper and Row, 1961.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. Science, Perception and Reality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. “Scientific Realism or Irenic Instrumentalism.” In Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. II. Edited by Cohen, B. and Wartofsky, M. W. New York: Humanities Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. “The Language of Theories.” In Philosophy of Science. Edited by Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Philosophical Review 73 (1964): 383–394.10.2307/2183664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, D. “Scientific Theories and Their Domains.” In [46].Google Scholar
Suchting, W. A. “Deductive Explanation and Prediction Revisited.” Philosophy of Science 34 (1967): 41–52.10.1086/288121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, F. “The Structure of Theories and the Analysis of Data.” In [46].Google Scholar
Suppe, F. The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Van Meisen, A. G. From Atomos to Atom. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960.Google Scholar
Wisdom, J. O. “Conventionalism, Truth, and Cosmological Furniture.” A paper read to the 1972 Philosophy of Science Association Meetings, Lansing, Michigan.Google Scholar
Wisdom, J. O. “Four Contemporary Interpretations of the Nature of Science.” Foundations of Physics 1 (1971): 269–284.10.1007/BF00708612CrossRefGoogle Scholar