Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2019
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Logic in Philosophy of Science , pp. 284 - 292Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Adámek, J., Sobral, M., and Sousa, L. (2006). Morita equivalence of many-sorted algebraic theories. Journal of Algebra, 297(2):361–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahlbrandt, G. and Ziegler, M. (1986). Quasi finitely axiomatizable totally categorical theories. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 30(1):63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainsworth, P. M. (2009). Newman’s objection. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60(1):135–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreas, H. (2007). Carnap’s Wissenschaftslogik: Eine Untersuching zur Zweistufenkonzeption. Mentis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andréka, H., Madaraśz, J., and Németi, I. (2008). Defining new universes in many-sorted logic. Mathematical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, 93.Google Scholar
Andréka, H., Madaraśz, J., and Németi, I. (2005). Mutual definability does not imply definitional equivalence, a simple example. Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 51(6):591–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andréka, H. and Németi, I. (2014). Comparing theories: The dynamics of changing vocabulary. A case-study in relativity theory. In Johan van Benthem on Logic and Information Dynamics. Springer.Google Scholar
Awodey, S. and Forssell, H. (2013). First-order logical duality. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 164(3):319–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Awodey, S. and Klein, C. (2004). Carnap Brought Home: The View from Jena. Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar
Baker, D. J. (2010). Symmetry and the metaphysics of physics. Philosophy Compass, 5(12):1157– 1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, D. W. and Mack, J. M. (1975). An Algebraic Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, T. W. (2015). On the structure of classical mechanics. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 66(4):801–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, T. W. (2018a). Equivalent and inequivalent formulations of classical mechanics, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axy017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, T. W. (2018b). What do symmetries tell us about structure? Philosophy of Science, 85(4), 617–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, T. W. and Halvorson, H. (2016a). Glymour and Quine on theoretical equivalence. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 45(5):467–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, T. W. and Halvorson, H. (2016b). Morita equivalence. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 9(3):556–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, T. W. and Halvorson, H. (2017a). From geometry to conceptual relativity. Erkenntnis, 82(5):1043–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, T. W. and Halvorson, H. (2017b). Quine’s conjecture on many-sorted logic. Synthese, 194(9):3563–3582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bealer, G. (1978). An inconsistency in functionalism. Synthese, 38(3):333–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belot, G. (1998). Understanding electromagnetism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 49(4):531–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belot, G. (2017). Fifty million Elvis fans can’t be wrong. Noûs, 52(4):946–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Menahem, Y. (2006). Conventionalism: From Poincaré to Quine. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beni, M. D. (2015). Structural realism without metaphysics: Notes on Carnap’s measured pragmatic structural realism. Organon F, 22(3):302–324.Google Scholar
Beth, E. and Tarski, A. (1956). Equilaterality as the only primitive notion of Euclidean geometry. Indagationes Mathematicae, 18:462–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beth, E. W. (1956). On Padoa’s method in the theory of definition. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 21(2):194–195.Google Scholar
Bickle, J. (2013). Multiple realizability. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/multiple-realizability/.Google Scholar
Blanchette, P. (2012). The Frege-Hilbert controversy. The Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege-hilbert/.Google Scholar
Blatti, S. and Lapointe, S. (2016). Ontology after Carnap. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boolos, G. S., Burgess, J. P., and Jeffrey, R. C. (2002). Computability and Logic. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breiner, S. (2014). Scheme Representation for First-Order Logic. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Bueno, O. (2010). A defense of second-order logic. Axiomathes, 20(2-3):365–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, J. P. (1984). Synthetic mechanics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 13(4):379–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butz, C. and Moerdijk, I. (1998). Representing topoi by topological groupoids. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 130:223–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1950). Empiricism, semantics, and ontology. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, pages 20–40.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1956). The methodological character of theoretical concepts. In The Foundations of Science and the Concepts of Psychology and Psychoanalysis, pages 38–76. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. and Schilpp, P. A. (1963). The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D., Manley, D., and Wasserman, R. (2009). Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffa, A. (1986). From geometry to tolerance: Sources of conventionalism in nineteenth-century geometry. In Colodny, R., editor, From Quarks to Quasars: Philosophical Problems of Modern Physics, pages 3–70. University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffa, J. A. (1993). The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap: To the Vienna Station. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Creath, R. and Friedman, M. (2007). The Cambridge Companion to Carnap. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cruse, P. and Papineau, D. (2002). Scientific realism without reference. In Marsonet, M., editor, The Problem of Realism, pages 174–189. Ashgate.Google Scholar
Curiel, E. (2014). Classical mechanics is Lagrangian; it is not Hamiltonian. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 65(2):269–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1970). Mental events. In Foster, L. and Swanson, J. W., editors, Essays on Actions and Events, pages 107–119. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
de Bouvére, K. L. (1965). Synonymous theories. In Symposium on the Theory of Models, pages 402–406. North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Demopoulos, W. (2013). Logicism and Its Philosophical Legacy. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewar, N. (2017b). Sophistication about symmetries. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
Dicken, P. and Lipton, P. (2006). What can Bas believe? Musgrave and van Fraassen on observability. Analysis, 66(291):226–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dizadji-Bahmani, F., Frigg, R., and Hartmann, S. (2010). Who’s afraid of Nagelian reduction? Erkenntnis, 73(3):393–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorr, C. (2014). Quantifier variance and the collapse theorems. The Monist, 97(4):503–570.Google Scholar
Dukarm, J. J. (1988). Morita equivalence of algebraic theories. Colloquium Mathematicae, 55(1):11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eilenberg, S. and Mac Lane, S. (1942). Group extensions and homology. Annals of Mathematics, 43(4):757–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eilenberg, S. and Mac Lane, S. (1945). General theory of natural equivalences. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 58:231–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S. (1974). Applications of many-sorted interpolation theorems. In Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium, volume 25, pages 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fewster, C. J. (2015). Locally covariant quantum field theory and the problem of formulating the same physics in all spacetimes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 373(2047):20140238.Google ScholarPubMed
Fletcher, S. (2016). Similarity, topology, and physical significance in relativity theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 67(2):365–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, H. M. and Visser, A. (2014). When bi-interpretability implies synonymy. Logic Group Preprint Series, 320:1–19.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1982). Review of The Scientific Image
. Journal of Philosophy, 79(5):274–283.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1999). Reconsidering Logical Positivism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. (2011). Carnap on theoretical terms: Structuralism without metaphysics. Synthese, 180(2):249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frigg, R. and Votsis, I. (2011). Everything you always wanted to know about structural realism but were afraid to ask. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 1(2):227–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gajda, A., Krynicki, M., and Szczerba, L. (1987). A note on syntactical and semantical functions. Studia Logica, 46(2):177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glymour, C. (1971). Theoretical realism and theoretical equivalence. In Buck, R. C. and Cohen, R. S., editors, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, pages 275–288. Springer.Google Scholar
Gödel, K. (1929). Über die Vollständigkeit des Logikkalküls. PhD thesis, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Halmos, P. and Givant, S. (1998). Logic as Algebra. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halvorson, H. (2012). What scientific theories could not be. Philosophy of Science, 79(2): 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halvorson, H. (2013). The semantic view, if plausible, is syntactic. Philosophy of Science, 80(3):475–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halvorson, H. (2016). Scientific theories. In Humphreys, P., editor, The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Science. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harnik, V. (2011). Model theory vs. categorical logic: Two approaches to pretopos completion (aka T eq ). In Hart, B., editor, Models, Logics, and Higher-Dimensional Categories, page 79. American Mathematical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, J. P. (2006). Plenitude, convention, and ontology. In Metaphysical Essays, pages 53– 70. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healey, R. (2007). Gauging What’s Real: The Conceptual Foundations of Contemporary Gauge Theories. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellman, G. (1985). Determination and logical truth. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(11):607–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellman, G. P. and Thompson, F. W. (1975). Physicalism: Ontology, determination, and reduction. The Journal of Philosophy, 72(17):551–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrlich, H. and Keremedis, K. (2000). The Baire category theorem and choice. Topology and Its Applications, 108(2):157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, E. (2011). Quantifier Variance and Realism: Essays in Metaontology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, E. and Warren, J. (2017). Quantifier variance and the demand for a semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.Google Scholar
Hudetz, L. (2018a). Definable categorical equivalence. Philosophy of Science, 2019 86(1): 47–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudetz, L. (2018b). The Logic of Scientific Theories. PhD thesis, University of Salzburg.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (2010). Carnap, the principle of tolerance, and empiricism. Philosophy of Science, 77(3):341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, P. T. (2003). Sketches of an Elephant: A Topos Theory Compendium. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keisler, H. J. (2010). The ultraproduct construction. www.math.wisc.edu/keisler/ultraproducts-web-final.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ketland, J. (2004). Empirical adequacy and Ramsification. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55(2):287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knox, E. (2014). Newtonian spacetime structure in light of the equivalence principle. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 65(4):863–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koppelberg, S. (1989). General theory of Boolean algebras. In Monk, J. and Bonnet, R., editors, Handbook of Boolean Algebras, volume 3. North-Holland.Google Scholar
Ladyman, J. (2014). Structural realism. Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/.Google Scholar
Lawvere, F. W. (1964). An elementary theory of the category of sets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 52(6):1506–1511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawvere, F. W. and Rosebrugh, R. (2003). Sets for Mathematics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leinster, T. (2014). Rethinking set theory. American Mathematical Monthly, 121(5):403–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitgeb, H. (2011). Logic in general philosophy of science: Old things and new things. Synthese, 179(2):339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1966). An argument for the identity theory. The Journal of Philosophy, 63(1):17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1970). How to define theoretical terms. The Journal of Philosophy, 67(13):427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1972). Psychophysical and theoretical identifications. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 50(3):249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1984). Putnam’s paradox. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 62(3):221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1994). Reduction of mind. In Guttenplan, S., editor, Companion to the Philosophy of Mind, 412–431. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lloyd, E. (1984). A Semantic Approach to the Structure of Evolutionary Theory. PhD thesis, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Love, A. C. and Hüttemann, A. (2016). Reduction. In Humphreys, P., editor, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mac Lane, S. (1948). Groups, categories and duality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 34(6):263–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makkai, M. (1985). Ultraproducts and categorical logic. In Methods in Mathematical Logic, pages 222–309. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makkai, M. (1987). Stone duality for first order logic. Advances in Mathematics, 65(2):97–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makkai, M. (1991). Duality and Definability in First Order Logic. American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
Makkai, M. (1995). First order logic with dependent sorts with applications to category theory. www.math.mcgill.ca/makkai/folds/foldsinpdf/FOLDS.pdf.Google Scholar
Manzano, M. (1993). Introduction to many-sorted logic. In Meinke, K. and Tucker, J., editors, Many-Sorted Logic and Its Applications, pages 3–86. Wiley.Google Scholar
Maxwell, G. (1962). The ontological status of theoretical entities. In Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G., editors, Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time, pages 3–27. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. and Bennett, K. (2018). Supervenience. Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/supervenience/.Google Scholar
McSweeney, M. (2016a). An epistemic account of metaphysical equivalence. Philosophical Perspectives, 30(1):270–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McSweeney, M. (2016b). The Metaphysical Basis of Logic. PhD thesis, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Melia, J. and Saatsi, J. (2006). Ramseyfication and theoretical content. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57(3):561–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzies, P. and Price, H. (2009). Is semantics in the plan? In Braddon-Mitchell, D. and Nola, R., editors, Conceptual Analysis and Philosophical Naturalism, pages 159–182. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mere, M. C. and Veloso, P. (1992). On extensions by sorts. Monografias em Ciências da Computaçao, DI, PUC-Rio, 38:92.Google Scholar
Moerdijk, I. and Vermeulen, J. (1999). Proof of a conjecture of A. Pitts. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 143(1-3):329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monk, J. D. (2014). The mathematics of Boolean algebras. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/boolalg-math/.Google Scholar
Myers, D. (1997). An interpretive isomorphism between binary and ternary relations. In Structures in Logic and Computer Science, pages 84–105. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E. (1935). The logic of reduction in the sciences. Erkenntnis, 5(1):46–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, M. H. (1928). Mr. Russell’s “causal theory of perception”. Mind, 37(146):137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, J. (2009). The “structure” of physics: A case study. The Journal of Philosophy, 106:57–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, W. (2012). Friedman on implicit definition: In search of the Hilbertian heritage in philosophy of science. Erkenntnis, 76(3):427–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, F. J. and Urquhart, A. (2003). Synonymous logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 32(3):259–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrie, B. (1987). Global supervenience and reduction. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 48(1):119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinter, C. C. (1978). Properties preserved under definitional equivalence and interpretations. Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 24(31-36):481–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, H. (2009). Metaphysics after Carnap: The ghost who walks. In Chalmers, D., Manley, D., and Wasserman, R., editors, Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology, pages 320–346. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psillos, S. (2000). Carnap, the Ramsey-sentence and realistic empiricism. Erkenntnis, 52(2): 253–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psillos, S. (2006). Ramsey’s Ramsey-sentences. In Galavotti, M., editor, Cambridge and Vienna: Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, pages 67–90. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1962). What theories are not. In Nagel, E., Suppes, P., and Tarski, A., editors, Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress, pages 240–251. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1977). Realism and reason. In Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, volume 50, pages 483–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1980). Models and reality. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 45(3):464–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (2001). Reply to Jennifer Case. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4(218).Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1937). New foundations for mathematical logic. American Mathematical Monthly, pages 70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1938). On the theory of types. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 3(04):125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1951a). On Carnap’s views on ontology. Philosophical Studies, 2(5):65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1951b). Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review, 60:20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1956). Unification of universes in set theory. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 21(03):267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1964). Implicit definition sustained. The Journal of Philosophy, 61(2):71–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1975). On empirically equivalent systems of the world. Erkenntnis, 9(3):313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. and Goodman, N. (1940). Elimination of extra-logical postulates. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5(3):104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, F. P. (1929). Theories. In F.P. Ramsey Philosophical Papers. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rasiowa, H. and Sikorski, R. (1950). A proof of the completeness theorem of Gödel. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 37(1):193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasiowa, H. and Sikorski, R. (1963). The Mathematics of Metamathematics. Państwow Wydaawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Rieffel, M. A. (1974). Morita equivalence for C ∗ -algebras and W ∗ -algebras. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 5:51–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, R. (1959). Binary relations as primitive notions in elementary geometry. In Henkin, L., Suppes, P., and Tarski, A., editors, The Axiomatic Method with Special Reference to Geometry and Physics, pages 68–85. North-Holland.Google Scholar
Rosenstock, S., Barrett, T. W., and Weatherall, J. O. (2015). On Einstein algebras and relativistic spacetimes. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 52:309–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenstock, S. and Weatherall, J. O. (2016). A categorical equivalence between generalized holonomy maps on a connected manifold and principal connections on bundles over that manifold. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 57(10):102902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royden, H. L. (1959). Remarks on primitive notions for elementary Euclidean and non-Euclidean plane geometry. In Henkin, L., Suppes, P., and Tarski, A., editors, The Axiomatic Method with Special Reference to Geometry and Physics, pages 86–96. North-Holland.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1901). Mathematics and the metaphysicians. In Mysticism and Logic, pages 57–74. Dover.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1914a). Logic as the essence of philosophy. In Our Knowledge of the External World, pages 26–48. Routledge.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1914b). On the scientific method in philosophy. In Mysticism and Logic, pages 75–96. Dover.Google Scholar
Sarkar, S. (2015). Nagel on reduction. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 53:43–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheibe, E. (2013). Die Reduktion physikalischer Theorien: Ein Beitrag zur Einheit der Physik. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Schmidt, A. (1951). Die Zulässigkeit der Behandlung mehrsortiger Theorien mittels der üblichen einsortigen Prädikatenlogik. Mathematische Annalen, 123(1):187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwabhäuser, W. and Szczerba, L. (1975). Relations on lines as primitive notions for Euclidean geometry. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 82(4):347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwabhäuser, W., Szmielew, W., and Tarski, A. (1983). Metamathematische Methoden in der Geometrie. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, D. (1956). A symmetric primitive notion for Euclidean geometry. Indagationes Mathematicae, 18:457–461.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. (1991). Foundations without foundationalism: A case for second-order logic. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, S. (1981). Some varieties of functionalism. Philosophical Topics, 12(1):93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, T. (2009). Ontological realism. In Chalmers, D., Manley, D., and Wasserman, R., editors, Metametaphysics, pages 384–423. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, F. (1974). The Structure of Scientific Theories. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (1989). The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism. University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (2000). Understanding scientific theories: An assessment of developments, 1969-1998. Philosophy of Science, pages S102–S115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, L. (1959). A theorem on permutations in models. Theoria, 25(3):173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, N. and Halvorson, H. (2012). On North’s “The structure of physics”. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Szczerba, L. (1977). Interpretability of elementary theories. In Logic, Foundations of Mathematics, and Computability Theory, pages 129–145. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szczerba, L. (1986). Tarski and geometry. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 51(4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szczerba, L. and Tarski, A. (1979). Metamathematical discussion of some affine geometries. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 104(3):155–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarski, A. (1929). Les fondements de la géométrie des corps. Ksiega Pamiatkowa Pierwszego Polskiego Zjazdu Matematycznego, pages 29–33.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1956). A general theorem concerning primitive notions of Euclidean geometry. Indagationes Mathematicae, 18:468–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarski, A. (1959). What is elementary geometry? In Henkin, L., Suppes, P., and Tarski, A., editors, The Axiomatic Method with Special Reference to Geometry and Physics, pages 16–29. North-Holland.Google Scholar
Tennant, N. (1985). Beth’s theorem and reductionism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 66(3-4):342–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tennant, N. (2015). Introducing Philosophy: God, Mind, World, and Logic. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsementzis, D. (2017a). First-order logic with isomorphism. https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.03092.Google Scholar
Tsementzis, D (2017b). A syntactic characterization of Morita equivalence. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 82(4):1181–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. (2010). Ontological pluralism. The Journal of Philosophy, 107(1):5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. (2012). Logic and ontological pluralism. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 41(2): 419–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uebel, T. (2011). Carnap’s ramseyfications defended. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 1(1):71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Benthem, J. (1982). The logical study of science. Synthese, 51(3):431–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Benthem, J. and Pearce, D. (1984). A mathematical characterization of interpretation between theories. Studia Logica, 43(3):295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1976). To save the phenomena. The Journal of Philosophy, 73(18):623–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1997). Putnam’s paradox: Metaphysical realism revamped and evaded. Noûs, 31(s11):17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (2008). Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (2011). Logic and the philosophy of science. Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 27:45–66.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, P. (2009). Being, existence, and ontological commitment. In Chalmers, D., Manley, D., and Wasserman, R., editors, Metametaphysics, pages 472–506. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Oosten, J. (2002). Basic category theory. www.staff.science.uu.nl/~ooste110/syllabi/catsmoeder.pdf.Google Scholar
van Riel, R. and van Gulick, R. (2014). Scientific reduction. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reduction/.Google Scholar
Visser, A. (2006). Categories of theories and interpretations. In Logic in Tehran. Proceedings of the Workshop and Conference on Logic, Algebra and Arithmetic
, Held October 18–22, 2003. ASL.Google Scholar
Warren, J. (2014). Quantifier variance and the collapse argument. The Philosophical Quarterly, 65(259):241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washington, E. (2018). On the equivalence of logical theories. Bachelor’s Thesis, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Weatherall, J. O. (2016a). Are Newtonian gravitation and geometrized Newtonian gravitation theoretically equivalent? Erkenntnis, 81(5):1073–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherall, J. O. (2016b). Regarding the “hole argument”. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, pages 1–22.Google Scholar
Weatherall, J. O. (2016c). Understanding gauge. Philosophy of Science, 83(5):1039–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherall, J. O. (2018). Categories and the foundations of classical field theories. In Landry, E., editor, Categories for the Working Philosopher. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Winnie, J. A. (1967). The implicit definition of theoretical terms. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 18(3):223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winnie, J. A. (1986). Invariants and objectivity: A theory with applications to relativity and geometry. In Colodny, R., editor, From Quarks to Quasars. University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Worrall, J. (1989). Structural realism: The best of both worlds? Dialectica, 43(1-2):99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worrall, J. and Zahar, E. (2001). Ramseyfication and structural realism. In Poincaré’s Philosophy, pages 236–251. Open Court.Google Scholar
Zahar, E. (2004). Ramseyfication and structural realism. Theoria. Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia, 19(1):5–30.Google Scholar
Zawadowski, M. W. (1995). Descent and duality. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 71(2): 131–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar