Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T00:47:06.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postulates and Meaning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Edward H. Madden  and
Murray J. Kiteley
Edward H. Madden
Affiliation:
San Jose State College
Murray J. Kiteley
Affiliation:
San Jose State College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most philosophers of science nowadays hold a network or postulational view of the meaning of theoretical words. However, there are many nuances to this view, and after explicitly separating them, we show what we take to be wrong with each one. While we reject the postulational view we do not defend its traditional alternatives either; rather we show the pointlessness of insisting on a single source for the meaning of theoretical words. We also point out the shortcomings of Carnap's newest meaning criterion which depends upon a network view. But, again, we suggest not only that this new rendition of the criterion is faulty but also that there is something misguided about any search at all for such a criterion.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 1962 , pp. 66 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1962

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

[1] Barker, S. F., Induction and Hypothesis (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1957).Google Scholar
[2] Braithwaite, R. B., Scientific Explanation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953).Google Scholar
[3] Carnap, Rudolf, “The Methodological Character of Theoretical Concepts” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. I. (Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1956).Google Scholar
[4] Hempel, Carl, Fundamentals of Concept Formation in the Empirical Sciences, Vol. II, No. 7 of The International Encyclopedia of Unified Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952).Google Scholar
[5] Hempel, Carl, “A Logical Appraisal of Operationism,” Scientific Monthly, 79 (1954).Google Scholar
[6] Hempel, Carl, “Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning,” Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4 (1950).Google Scholar
[7] Hempel, Carl, “The Theoretician's Dilemma” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. II, (Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1958).Google Scholar
[8] Jack, Henry, “Reply to Barker's Criticism of Formalism,” Philosophy of Science, 26 (1959), 355–361.10.1086/287690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Madden, Edward H., “Definition and Reduction,” Philosophy of Science, 28 (1961), 390–405.10.1086/287825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Madden, Edward H., “The Riddle of Induction,” The Journal of Philosophy, LX (1958), 705–718.10.2307/2022112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Mandler, George, and Kessen, William, The Language of Psychology (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959).Google Scholar
[12] Pap, Arthur, “Disposition Concepts and Extensional Logic” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. II.Google Scholar
[13] Warnock, G. J., “Verification and Use of Language,” Revue Internationale de Philosophie, No. 17–18 (1951).Google Scholar