Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T04:09:34.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Established Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Fritz Rohrlich  and
Larry Hardin
Fritz Rohrlich
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Syracuse University
Larry Hardin
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Syracuse University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Criteria are given to characterize mature theories in contradistinction to developing theories. We lean heavily on the physical sciences. An established theory is defined as a mature one with known validity limits. The approximate truth of such theories is thereby given a quantitative character. Superseding theories do not falsify established theories because the latter are protected by their validity limits. This view of scientific realism leads to ontological levels and cumulativity of knowledge. It is applied to a defense of realism against recent attacks by Laudan.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , December 1983 , pp. 603 - 617
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1983

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

†

We are indebted to Professor Donald T. Campbell for his continued encouragement during the initial phases of this work.

References

Bochner, S. (1966), The Role of Mathematics in the Rise of Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Born, M. and Wolf, E. (1959), Principles of Optics. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Bunge, M. (1967), Foundations of Physics. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunge, M. (1973), Philosophy of Physics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrenfest, P. (1927), “Bemerkungen Über die Angenäherte Gültigkeit der Klassischen Mechanik innerhalb der Quantenmechanik”, Zeitschrift für Physik 45: 455–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grad, H. (1961), “The Many Faces of Entropy”, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 14: 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, L. and Rosenberg, A. (1982), “In Defense of Convergent Realism”, Philosophy of Science 49: 604–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jauch, J. M. (1968), Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Kac, M. (1959), Probability Theory and Related Topics in Physical Sciences. New York: Interscience.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1976), “Two Dogmas of Methodology”, Philosophy of Science 43: 585–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1981), “A Confutation of Convergent Realism”, Philosophy of Science 48: 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961), The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt Brace.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. (1967), “Approach to Reduction”, Philosophy of Science 34: 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimony, A. (1976), “Comments on Two Epistemological Theses of Thomas Kuhn”, in Cohen, R. S. et al. (eds.), Essays in Memory of Imré Lakatos. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 569–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar