Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:40:43.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Cognitive Structure of Scientific Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Ronald N. Giere
Ronald N. Giere*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science University of Minnesota
*
‡Send reprint requests to the author, Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science, 309 Ford Hall, 224 Church Street S.E., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores a new reason for preferring a model-theoretic approach to understanding the nature of scientific theories. Identifying the models in philosophers' model-theoretic accounts of theories with the concepts in cognitive scientists' accounts of categorization suggests a structure to families of models far richer than has commonly been assumed. Using classical mechanics as an example, it is argued that families of models may be “mapped” as an array with “horizontal” graded structures, multiply hierarchical “vertical” structures, and local “radial” structures. These structures promise important implications for how scientific theories are learned and used in actual scientific practice.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 276 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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

†

The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the National Science Foundation and the hospitality of the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin.

References

Berlin, B. and Kay, P. (1969), Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S.; Goodnow, J. J.; and Austin, G. A. (1956), A Study of Thinking. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Carey, S. (1985), Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H.; Feltovich, P. J.; Glaser, R. (1981), “Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices”, Cognitive Science 5: 121–152.10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gähde, U. (1989), “Bridge Structures and the Borderline Between the Internal and External History of Science”, in Gavroglu, K., Goudaroulis, Y. and Nicolacopoulos, P. (eds.), Imre Lakatos and Theories of Scientific Change. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 215–225.10.1007/978-94-009-3025-4_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. N. (1988), Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226292038.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1965), “Fundamentals of Taxonomy”, in Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press, pp. 137–154.Google Scholar
Keil, F. C. (1989), Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1977), “Second Thoughts on Paradigms”, in Suppe, F. (ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories. 2d ed. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 459–482.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987), Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larkin, J. H. (1985), “Understanding, Problem Representations, and Skill in Physics”, in S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, and R. Glaser (eds.), Thinking and Learning Skills. Vol. 2, Research and Open Questions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 141–159.Google Scholar
Larkin, J.; McDermott, J.; Simon, D. P.; and Simon, H. A. (1980), “Expert and Novice Performance in Solving Physics Problems”, Science 208: 1335–1342.10.1126/science.208.4450.1335CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medin, D. (1989), “Concepts and Conceptual Structure”, American Psychologist 44: 1469–1481.10.1037/0003-066X.44.12.1469CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, G. L. and Medin, D. L. (1985), “The Role of Theories in Conceptual Coherence”, Psychological Review 92: 289–316.10.1037/0033-295X.92.3.289CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosch, E. (1973a), “Natural Categories”, Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–350.10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1973b), “On the Internal Structure of Perceptual and Semantic Categories”, in Moore, T. E. (ed.), Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. New York: Academic Press, pp. 111–144.10.1016/B978-0-12-505850-6.50010-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978), “Principles of Categorization”, in Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 27–48.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. and Mervis, C. B. (1975), “Family Resemblances Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories”, Cognitive Psychology 7: 573–605.10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E.; Mervis, C. B.; Gray, W. D.; Johnson, D. M.; and Boyes-Barem, P. (1976), “Basic Objects in Natural Categories”, Cognitive Psychology 8: 382–439.10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. E. (1990), “Categorization”, in Osherson, D. N. and Smith, E. E. (eds.), Thinking: An Invitation to Cognitive Science, vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 33–53.Google Scholar
Smith, E. E. and Medin, D. L. (1981), Categories and Concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674866270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegmüller, W. (1976), The Structures and Dynamics of Theories. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-3-662-01671-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegmüller, W. (1979), The Structuralist View of Theories: A Possible Analogue of the Bourbaki Programme in Physical Science. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-3-642-95360-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, F. (1972), “‘What's Wrong with the Received View on the Structure of Scientific Theories?‘”, Philosophy of Science 39: 1–19.10.1086/288405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, F. (1989), The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0198244274.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1989), Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0198248601.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whorf, B. L. (1956), Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Edited by Carroll, J. B. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar