Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T14:52:57.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Empirical Adequacy in the Received View

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Sebastian Lutz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I show that the central notion of Constructive Empiricism, empirical adequacy, can be expressed syntactically and specifically in the Received View of the logical empiricists. The formalization shows that the Received View is superior to Constructive Empiricism in the treatment of theories involving constants or functions from observable to unobservable objects. It also suggests a formalization of ‘full empirical informativeness’ in Constructive Empiricism.

Type
General Philosophy of Science
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 81 , Issue 5 , December 2014 , pp. 1171 - 1183
Copyright
Copyright © 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

†

Early versions of this article have been presented at the Lunch Talk of the Theoretical Philosophy Unit at Utrecht University and at the PhDs in Logic conference at Ghent University in 2009. I thank the audiences, the audience at the Twenty-Third Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Albert Visser, Thomas Müller, and F. A. Muller for helpful discussions. Research for this article was in part supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

References

Bell, J. L., and Machover, M.. 1977. A Course in Mathematical Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1963. “Replies and Systematic Expositions.” In The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, ed. Schilpp, P. A., 859–1016. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Schilpp, P. A. 1966. Philosophical Foundations of Physics: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Carus, A. W. 2007. Carnap and Twentieth-Century Thought: Explication as Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511487132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, C. C., and Keisler, H. J.. 1990. Model Theory. 3rd ed. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Enderton, H. B. 2009. “Second-Order and Higher-Order Logic.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, E. N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1982. Review of The Scientific Image, by van Fraassen, Bas. Journal of Philosophy 79 (5): 274–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halvorson, H. 2012. “What Scientific Theories Could Not Be.” Philosophy of Science 79 (2): 183–206.10.1086/664745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halvorson, H. 2013. “The Semantic View, If Plausible, Is Syntactic.” Philosophy of Science 80 (3): 475–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodges, W. 1993. Model Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511551574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Justus, J. 2012. “Carnap on Concept Determination: Methodology for Philosophy of Science.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (2): 161–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutz, S. 2009. “Ideal Language Philosophy and Experiments on Intuitions.” Studia Philosophica Estonica 2 (2): 117–39.Google Scholar
Lutz, S. 2012. “On a Straw Man in the Philosophy of Science: A Defense of the Received View.” HOPOS: Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 2 (1): 77–120.Google Scholar
Lutz, S. Forthcoming. “What’s Right with a Syntactic Approach to Theories and Models?” Erkenntnis. doi:10.1007/s10670-013-9578-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, P. 2007. “Explication Defended.” Studia Logica 86 (2): 331–41.10.1007/s11225-007-9063-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monton, B., and Mohler, C.. 2008. “Constructive Empiricism.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, E. N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Mormann, T. 2007. “The Structure of Scientific Theories in Logical Empiricism.” In The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism, ed. Richardson, A. and Uebel, T., 136–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Muller, F. A. 2010. “Reflections on the Revolution at Stanford.” Synthese 183 (1): 87–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percival, P. 2007. “An Empiricist Critique of Constructive Empiricism: The Aim of Science.” In Images of Empiricism: Essays on Science and Stances, with a Reply from Bas C. van Fraassen, ed. Monton, B., chap. 6, 83–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199218844.003.0006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, A. 2007. “‘That Sort of Everyday Image of Logical Positivism’—Thomas Kuhn and the Decline of Logical Empiricist Philosophy of Science.” In The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism, ed. Richardson, A. and Uebel, T., 346–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turney, P. 1990. “Embeddability, Syntax, and Semantics in Accounts of Scientific Theories.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 19:429–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. 1970. “On the Extension of Beth’s Semantics of Physical Theories.” Philosophy of Science 37 (3): 325–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon.10.1093/0198248601.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. 1991. Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. 2002. The Empirical Stance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. 2007. “From a View of Science to a New Empiricism.” In Images of Empiricism: Essays on Science and Stances, with a Reply from Bas C. van Fraassen, ed. Monton, B., chap. 15. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Monton, B., chap. 15 2008. Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Worrall, J. 1984. “An Unreal Image.” Review of The Scientific Image, by van Fraassen, Bas. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35:65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar