Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:44:10.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Communication by Ramsey-Sentence Clause

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Herbert G. Bohnert
Herbert G. Bohnert*
Affiliation:
Thomas J. Watson Research Center
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

F. P. Ramsey pointed out in Theories that the observational content of a theory expressed partly in non-observational terms is retained in the sentence resulting from existentially generalizing the conjunction of all sentences of the theory with respect to all nonobservational terms. Such terms are thus avoidable in principle, but only at the cost of forming a single “monolithic” sentence. This paper suggests that communication may be thought of as occurring not only by sentence but by clause, a sentential formula closed except for a special kind of variable. Understanding such clauses requires incorporating them within the scope of one's own Ramsey sentence. Many concepts of deductive and inductive logic carry over without great change. But the concepts of truth and designation are extendible to clauses only in the sense that assertions involving them must, to be understood, in turn be construed as clauses and incorporated into the Ramsey sentence. The behavior of these extended concepts of truth and designation suggests an explication of coherence truth within a correspondence-truth framework.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , December 1967 , pp. 341 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1967

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

†

This is a slightly revised part of a paper read at the annual meeting of the American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division, Washington, D.C., December 1963. The author wishes to thank those whose sustained interest finally elicited this publication, especially Profs. Quine, Rudner, and Scheffler. Preparation of the original paper was partly supported by The Air Force Office of Scientific Research under contract AF 49(638)-1198.

References

REFERENCES

[1] Bohnert, Herbert G., The Interpretation of Theory, Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1961, University Microfilm Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
[2] Bohnert, Herbert G., “In Defense of Ramsey's Elimination Method,” Journal of Philosophy, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
[3] Braithwaite, R. B., Scientific Explanation, 1953.Google Scholar
[4] Carnap, R., “Testability and Meaning,” Philosophy of Science, Vol. 3, 1936 and Vol. 4, 1937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Carnap, R., “The Methodological Character of Theoretical Concepts,” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, I, II. Feigl and M. Scriven (eds), 1962.Google Scholar
[6] Carnap, R., “Theoretical Concepts in Science,” a paper delivered at a meeting of the American Philosophical Association at Santa Barbara, California, 1958.Google Scholar
[7] Carnap, R., “On the Use of Hilbert's ∊-Operator in Scientific Theories,” in Essays on the Foundations of Mathematics, Y. Bar-Hillel, E. Poznanski, M. Rabin, A. Robinson (eds.), 1961.Google Scholar
[8] Carnap, R., with Gardner, M., Philosophical Foundations of Physics, 1966, Part V.Google Scholar
[9] Hempel, C. G., “The Theoretician's Dilemma,” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, II, H. Feigl, G. Maxwell, and M. Scriven (eds.), 1956.Google Scholar
[10] Martin, R. M., “On Theoretical Constructs and Ramsey Constants,” Philosophy of Science, 33, March-June 1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Maxwell, G., “The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities” in Minnesota Studies in Philosophy of Science, III, H. Feigel, and G. Maxwell, (eds.), 1962.Google Scholar
[12] Quine, W. V., Word and Object, 1960.Google Scholar
[13] Ramsey, F. P., “Theories” in The Foundations of Mathematics, 1931.Google Scholar
[14] Rozeboom, W., “The Factual Content of Theoretical Concepts,” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, III, H. Feigl, and G. Maxwell (eds)., 1962.Google Scholar
[15] Russell, B., “Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, XI. Reprinted in several collections.Google Scholar
[16] Scheffler, I., The Anatomy of Inquiry, 1963.Google Scholar
[17] Scheffler, I., “Reflections on the Ramsey Method,” Journal of Philosophy, forthcoming.Google Scholar