Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-24T07:22:57.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fit, Finite, and Universal Axiomatization of Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Herbert A. Simon
Herbert A. Simon*
Affiliation:
Carnegie-Mellon University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a previous paper (Simon and Groen 1973) it was proposed that theories of empirical phenomena should satisfy conditions of finite and irrevocable testability (FITness conditions). Roughly speaking, a theory is finitely testable if, for every set of observations that falsifies the theory, there exists a finite subset of observations that falsifies it. A theory is irrevocably testable if, for any finite set of observations that falsifies the theory, any superset of observations that includes that set also falsifies it—a theory falsified by observations cannot be resuscitated by adding new observations to the original set.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , June 1979 , pp. 295 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1979

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

†

This research was supported by Research Grant MH-07722 from the National Institute of Mental Research and by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Office of the Secretary to Defense F44620-73-C-0074 which is monitored by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. I am grateful to R. Duncan Luce for comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

Adams, E. W., Fagot, R. F., & Robinson, R. E. (1970), “On the empirical status of axioms in theories of fundamental measurement.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 7: 379–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D. & Tukey, J. W. (1964), “Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson & Co.Google Scholar
Scott, D. (1964), “Measurement structures and linear inequalities.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1: 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, D. & Suppes, P. (1958), “Foundational aspects of theories of measurement.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 23: 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoenfield, J. R. (1967) Mathematical Logic. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1977), “Identifiability and the status of theoretical terms.” in R. E. Butts & J. Hintikka (eds.), Basic Problems in Methodology and Linguistics, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. & Groen, G. J. (1973), “Ramsey-eliminability and the testability of scientific theories.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24: 357–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneed, J. D. (1971) The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titiev, R. J. (1969), Some model-theoretic results in measurement theory. Technical Report 146, Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. (1973), Theoretical Concepts. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar