Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:06:54.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding Scientific Theories: An Assessment of Developments, 1969–1998

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Frederick Suppe
Frederick Suppe*
Affiliation:
Texas Tech University
*
†Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, Box 43092, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-3092.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The positivistic Received View construed scientific theories syntactically as axiomatic calculi where theoretical terms were given a partial semantic interpretation via correspondence rules connecting them to observation statements. This paper assesses what, with hindsight, seem the most important defects in the Received View; surveys the main proposed successor analyses to the Received View—various Semantic Conception versions and the Structuralist Analysis; evaluates how well they avoid those defects; examines what new problems they face and where the most promising require further development or leave unanswered questions; explores implications of recent work on models for understanding theories; and rebuts the few criticisms of the Semantic Conception that have surfaced.

Type
Metaphilosophy and the History of the Philosophy of Science
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 67 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers Sep., 2000 , 2000 , pp. S102 - S115
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 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.)

Footnotes

‡

I thank Steven French for helpful discussion and access to forthcoming works. Thanks also to other symposium speakers and to Walter Vincenti.

References

Birkhoff, G. and Neumann, J. von (1936), “The Logic of Quantum Mechanics”, Annals of Mathematics 37: 823–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brush, Stephen G. (1989), “Prediction and Theory Evaluation: The Case of Light Bending”, Science 246: 1124–1129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brush, Stephen G. (1990), “Prediction and Theory Evaluation: Alfvén on Space Plasma Phenomena”, EOS 71/2: 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N., Shomar, T. and Suarez, M. (1996), “The Tool Box of Science: Tools for Building of Models with a Superconductivity Example”, in Herfel, W. E. et. al (eds.), Theories and Models in Scientific Processes. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi, 137–149.Google Scholar
Da Costa, N. C. A. and French, S. (1990), “The Model-theoretic Approach in Philosophy of Science”, Philosophy of Science 57: 248–265.Google Scholar
Downes, S. M. (1992), “The Importance of Models in Theorizing: A Deflationary Semantic View”, PSA 1992, vol. 1. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 142–153.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. (1974), “Formulation and Formalization of Scientific Theories”, in Suppe 1974, 244–254.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1989), “Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World”, in Kitcher, P. and Salmon, W. (eds.), Scientific Explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1973), Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mayo, Deborah G. (1996), Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montague, Richard (1974), “Logical Necessity, Physical Necessity, Ethics, and Quantifiers”, in Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, edited by Thomason, R. H. New Haven: Yale University Press, 71–83.Google Scholar
Morrison, M. (forthcoming), “Models as Autonomous Agents”, in Morgan, M. and Morrison, M. (eds.), Models as Mediators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norton, S. D. and Suppe, F. (2000), “Epistemology of Atmospheric Modeling”, in Edwards, P. N. and Miller, C. A. (eds.), Changing the Atmosphere: The Politics of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Savage, C. W. (1999), “The Semantic (Mis)Conception of Theories”, Philosophy of Science, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Sneed, Joseph D. (1971), The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, Frederick (1967), The Meaning and Use of Models in Mathematics and the Exact Sciences. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick. (1974), The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana: University of Illinois Press (2nd ed., 1977).Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick. (1974a), “The Search for Philosophical Understanding of Scientific Theories”, in Suppe 1974, 3–241.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick. (1989), The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick. (1993), “Credentialing Scientific Claims”, Perspectives on Science 1: 153–203.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick. (1997), “Science Without Induction”, in Earman, John and Norton, John (eds.), The Cosmos of Science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 386–429.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick. (1998), “Scientific Theories”, in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick. (forthcoming), Facts, Theories, and Scientific Observation, vol. 2.Google Scholar
Suppes, Patrick (1957), Introduction to Logic. Princeton: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Suppes, Patrick. (1961), “A Comparison of the Meaning and Use of Models in Mathematics and the Empirical Sciences”, in Freudenthal, J. (ed.), The Concept and the Role of the Model in Mathematics and Natural and Social Sciences. Dordrecht: Reidel, 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, Patrick. (1967), “What is a Scientific Theory?”, in Morgenbesser, S. (ed.), Philosophy of Science Today. New York: Basic Books, 55–67.Google Scholar
Suppes, Patrick (1962), “Models of Data”, in Nagel, E., Suppes, P., and Tarski, A. (eds.), Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the I960 International Congress. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 252–261.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas (1967), “Meaning Relations Among Predicates”, Noûs 1: 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas. (1969), “Meaning Relations and Modalities”, Noûs 3: 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas. (1970), “On the Extension of Beth's Semantics of Physical Theories”, Philosophy of Science 37: 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas. (1980), The Scientific Image. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas. (1989), Laws and Symmetry. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas. (1991), Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Neumann, John (1955), Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar