Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:18:16.473Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stegmüller on the Relationship between Theory and Experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Joseph J. Kockelmans
Joseph J. Kockelmans*
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Stegmüller's most recent publication, Theorie und Erfahrung, is the second of four volumes of a work which appears under the general title Probleme und Resultate der Wissenschaftstheorie und analytische Philosophie, ([36], all references in the discussion below are taken from the second volume of this work). In this voluminous and daring work the author intends to deliver a systematic, critical account of the most important literature which has appeared on various basic topics of philosophy of science and its underlying assumptions over the past twenty-five years. The work promises to become a classic in the German language because of its comprehensiveness, thoroughness, and clarity.

Type
Discussion Review
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , September 1972 , pp. 397 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © 1972 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.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Achinstein, P. “Scientific Theories and Empirical Significance.” Review of Metaphysics 19 (1965): 758–769.Google Scholar
[2] Achinstein, P. “Theoretical Terms and Partial Interpretation.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 14 (1963): 89–105.10.1093/bjps/XIV.54.89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Braithwaite, R. B. Scientific Explanation. New York: Harper and Row, 1960.Google Scholar
[4] Bridgman, P. W. The Logic of Modern Physics. New York: Macmillan, 1927.Google Scholar
[5] Carnap, R. “Beobachtungssprache und theoretische Sprache.” Logica, Studia Paul Bernays Dedicata. Neuchâtel: Editions du Griffon, 1959.Google Scholar
[6] Carnap, R. “The Methodological Character of Theoretical Concepts.” Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 1. Edited by H. Feigl and M. Scriven. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 1956.Google Scholar
[7] Carnap, R. Philosophical Foundations of Physics. Edited by Gardner, M. New York: Macmillan, 1966.Google Scholar
[8] Carnap, R. “Testability and Meaning.” Philosophy of Science 3 (1936): 419–471 ; 4 (1937): 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Craig, W. “On Axiomatizability Within a System.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 18 (1953): 30–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Craig, W. “Replacement of Auxiliary Expressions.” Philosophical Review 64 (1956): 38–55.Google Scholar
[11] Goodman, N. The Structure of Appearance. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1955.Google Scholar
[12] Hempel, C. G. Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press, 1965.Google Scholar
[13] Hempel, C. G. Fundamentals of Concept Formation in the Empirical Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952.Google Scholar
[14] Hempel, C. G. “Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning.” Semantics and the Philosophy of Language. Edited by Linsky, L. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1952.Google Scholar
[15] Jeffrey, H. Scientific Inference. Cambridge, Eng.: The University Press, 1931.Google Scholar
[16] Kaplan, D. “Significance and Analyticity. A Comment on Some Proposals of Carnap.” Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Philosophical Association at Santa Barbara, December, 1959. Manuscript.Google Scholar
[17] Kockelmans, J. J. “Review of Stegmüller's Probleme und Resultate der Wissenschaftstheorie und analytische Philosophie. Band 1: Wissenschaftliche Erklärung und Begründung.” Philosophy of Science 38 (1971): 126–132.Google Scholar
[18] McKinsey, J. C.; Sugar, A. C.; and Suppes, P. “Axiomatic Foundations of Classical Mechanics.” Journal of Rational Mechanics and Analysis 2 (1953): 253–272.Google Scholar
[19] Nagel, E. “Hans Reichenbach: Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.” Journal of Philosophy 42 (1945): 437–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20] Nagel, E. “Professor Reichenbach on Quantum Mechanics: A Rejoinder.” Journal of Philosophy 43 (1946): 247–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21] Nagel, E. The Structure of Science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22] Popper, K. “The Demarcation Between Science and Philosophy.” The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. Edited by Schilpp, P. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court, 1963.Google Scholar
[23] Popper, K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper and Row, 1965.Google Scholar
[24] Ramsey, F. P. The Foundations of Mathematics. Edited by Braithwaite, R. B. New York: Harcourt, 1931.Google Scholar
[25] Reichenbach, H. Axiomatik der relativistischen Raum-Zeit-Lehre. Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1965.Google Scholar
[26] Reichenbach, H. Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1948.Google Scholar
[27] Reichenbach, H. Philosophie der Raum-Zeitlehre. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[28] Reichenbach, H. “Quantum Mechanics.” Journal of Philosophy 43 (1946): 239–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[29] Scheffler, I. The Anatomy of Inquiry. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963.Google Scholar
[30] Scheffler, I. “Prospects of a Modest Empiricism.” Review of Metaphysics 10 (1956–57): 383–400, 602–625.Google Scholar
[31] Schilpp, P. A., ed. The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court, 1963.Google Scholar
[32] Simon, H. A. “The Axioms of Newtonian Mechanics.” Philosophical Magazine 33 (1947): 888–905.Google Scholar
[33] Smullyan, R. M. Theory of Formal Systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[34] Stegmüller, W. Das Wahrheitsproblem und die Idee der Semantik. Vienna: Springer, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[35] Stegmüller, W. Metaphysik, Skepsis, Wissenschaft. Berlin: Springer, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[36] Stegmüller, W. Probleme und Resultate der Wissenschaftstheorie und analytische Philosophie. Band I: Wissenschaftliche Erklärung und Begründung. Band II: Theorie und Erfahrung. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1970. (All references in text are taken from the 2nd volume.)Google Scholar
[37] Suppes, P. “The Role of Probability in Quantum Mechanics.” Philosophy of Science: The Delaware Seminar. Vol. 2. Edited by Baumrin, B. New York: Wiley, 1963, pp. 319–337.Google Scholar