Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T05:51:35.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Comparability of Scientific Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Carl R. Kordig
Carl R. Kordig*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this article I discuss the justification of scientific change and argue that it rests on different sorts of invariance. Against this background I consider notions of observation, meaning, and regulative standards. I sketch an account of the rationale of scientific change which preserves the merits and avoids the shortcomings of the approach of Feyerabend, Hanson, Kuhn, Toulmin, and others. Each of these writers would hold that transitions from one scientific tradition to another force radical changes in what is observed, in the meanings of the terms employed, and in the metastandards involved. They would claim that “incommensurable” replacement is what does, and should, occur during scientific “revolutions.” Such writers, however, have trouble in comparing different scientific theories. My account permits different theories to be compared in various ways. These comparisons, I argue, are possible through appeal to “first-level” and “second-level” invariance. In this connection I argue that observation, meaning, and regulative standards should be, and in fact usually are, nontrivially invariant with respect to scientific change.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , December 1971 , pp. 467 - 485
Copyright
Copyright © 1971 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

1

For stimulation, criticism, and encouragement my grateful thanks are due to R. H. Thomason, H. Margenau, A. I. Fine, and the late N. R. Hanson.

References

[1] Feyerabend, P. K. “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism.” Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science: Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time vol. 3. (eds. Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962, pp. 28–97.Google Scholar
[2] Feyerabend, P. K. “On the ‘Meaning’ of Scientific Terms.” The Journal of Philosophy 62 (1965): 266–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Fine, A. L. “Consistency, Derivability, and Scientific Change.” The Journal of Philosophy 64 (1967): 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Frank, P. Modern Science and its Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949.Google Scholar
[5] Fréchet, M. “Sur quelques points du calcul fonctionnel.” Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico 22 (1906): 1–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Goodman, N. The Structure of Appearance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951.Google Scholar
[7] Goodman, N. “On Likeness of Meaning.” Semantics and the Philosophy of Language (ed. Linsky, L.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1952, pp. 67–74.Google Scholar
[8] Grünbaum, A. Philosophical Problems of Space and Time. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963.Google Scholar
[9] Hanson, N. R. Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
[10] Hanson, N. R. The Concept of the Positron. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Harré, R. An Introduction to the Logic of the Sciences. London: Macmillan and Co., 1963.Google Scholar
[12] Hempel, C. G. Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966.Google Scholar
[13] Kordig, C. R. “On Prescribing Description.” Synthese 18 (1968): 459–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Kordig, C. R. “Feyerabend and Radical Meaning Variance.” Nous 4 (1970): 399–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15] Kordig, C. R. “The Theory-ladenness of Observation.” Review of Metaphysics 24 (1971): 448–484.Google Scholar
[16] Kordig, C. R. “Objectivity, Scientific Change and Self-reference.” Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science vol. 8 (eds. Cohen, R. S. and Buck, R.). Dordrecht-Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1971.Google Scholar
[17] Kordig, C. R. The Justification of Scientific Change. Dordrecht-Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18] Korner, S. “On Philosophical Arguments in Physics.” The Structure of Scientific Thought (ed. Madden, E. H.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1960, pp. 106–110.Google Scholar
[19] Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.Google Scholar
[20] Margenau, H. The Nature of Physical Reality. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950.Google Scholar
[21] Margenau, H. “Meaning and Scientific Status of Causality.” Philosophy of Science (eds. Danto, A. and Morgenbesser, S.). New York: The World Publishing Company, 1960, pp. 435–449.Google Scholar
[22] Margenau, H. Open Vistas. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961.Google Scholar
[23] Margenau, H. “What Is a Theory?” The Structure of Economic Science (ed. Krupp, S. R.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966, pp. 25–38.Google Scholar
[24] Meltzer, R. The Aesthetics of Rock. New York: Something Else Press, 1970.Google Scholar
[25] Mendelson, E. Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1964.Google Scholar
[26] Nagel, E. “The Meaning of Reduction in the Natural Sciences.” Philosophy of Science (eds. Danto, A. and Morgenbesser, S.). Cleveland: The World Publishing Co., 1960, pp. 288–312.Google Scholar
[27] Quine, W. V. From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953.Google Scholar
[28] Quine, W. V. The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays. New York: Random House, 1966.Google Scholar
[29] Rudner, R. “An Introduction to Simplicity.” Philosophical Problems of Natural Science (ed. Shapere, D.). New York: Macmillan Company, 1965, pp. 75–81.Google Scholar
[30] Ryle, G. The Concept of Mind. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1949.Google Scholar
[31] Scheffler, I. Science and Subjectivity. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1967.Google Scholar
[32] Shapere, D. “Meaning and Scientific Change.” Mind and Cosmos (ed. Colodny, R.). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966, pp. 41–85.Google Scholar
[33] Toulmin, S. Foresight and Understanding. New York: Harper and Row, 1961.Google Scholar
[34] Toulmin, S. “Conceptual Revolutions in Science.” Synthese 17 (1967): 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[35] Toulmin, S. “Reply.” Synthese 18 (1968): 462–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar