Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T11:01:27.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theoretical Equivalence and the Semantic View of Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Clark Glymour
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Halvorson argues through a series of examples and a general result due to Myers that the “semantic view” of theories has no available account of formal theoretical equivalence. De Bouvere provides criteria overlooked in Halvorson’s paper that are immune to his counterexamples and to the theorem he cites. Those criteria accord with a modest version of the semantic view that rejects some of Van Fraassen’s apparent claims while retaining the core of Patrick Suppes’s proposal. I do not endorse any version of the semantic view of theories.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 80 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 286 - 297
Copyright
Copyright © 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

De Bouvere, K. 1965. “Synonymous Theories.” In The Theory of Models, ed. Atkinson, J. et al. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Ehrenfeucht, A. 1966. “On Theories Categorical in Power.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 31:645.Google Scholar
Halvorson, H. 2012. “What Scientific Theories Could Not Be.” Philosophy of Science 79:183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, E. 1994. The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Makkai, M., and Reyes, G. 1977. First Order Categorical Logic. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, D. 1997. “An Interpretive Isomorphism between Binary and Ternary Theories.” In Structures in Logic and Computer Science: A Selection of Essays in Honor of Andrzej Ehrenfeucht. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Robinson, R. 1959. “Binary Relations as Primitive Notions in Elementary Geometry.” In The Axiomatic Method, ed. Henkin, L. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. 1967. Set-Theoretical Structures in Science. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. 2006. “Representation: The Problem for Structuralism.” Philosophy of Science 73:536–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar