Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:33:06.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Syntactic and Semantic Analysis of Idealizations in Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

William F. Barr
William F. Barr*
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Cortland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Various laws and theories in the natural and social sciences are presented with a view to discerning the syntactic and semantic characteristics of many idealizations in science. Three different kinds of idealizations are discussed: ideal conditions, ideal cases, and idealized theories. An ideal condition is a formula in which state variables occur, whose existential closure is false, and for which there is another formula that can be constructed out of the original formula such that the existential closure of the new formula is true. An ideal case is a statement which is logically equivalent to a universal conditional which has an ideal condition as its antecedent. And an idealized theory is a set of false universal conditional statements. Alternative syntactic and semantic analyses are viewed and criticized.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , June 1971 , pp. 258 - 272
Copyright
Copyright © 1971 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] Becker, H., Through Values to Social Interpretation, Duke University Press, Durham, 1950.Google Scholar
[2] Brodbeck, M., “Models, Meaning, and Theories,” in Symposium on Sociological Theory (ed. Gross, Llewellyn), Row, Peterson and Company, Evanston, 1959, pp. 373–403.Google Scholar
[3] Brown, R., Explanation in Social Science, Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, 1963.Google Scholar
[4] Downs, A., An Economic Theory of Democracy, Harper & Row, New York, 1957.Google Scholar
[5] Friedman, M., Essays in Positive Economics, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1953.Google Scholar
[6] Goodman, N., Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, second edition, The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., Indianapolis, 1965.Google Scholar
[7] Hempel, C. G., Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science, The Free Press, New York, 1965.Google Scholar
[8] Hempel, C. G., Philosophy of Natural Science, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, 1966.Google Scholar
[9] Hempel, C. G., and Oppenheim, P., “The Logic of Explanation,” Readings in the Philosophy of Science (ed. Feigl, H. and Brodbeck, M.), Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., New York, 1953, pp. 337–350.Google Scholar
[10] Humphreys, W. C., Anomalies and Scientific Theories, Freeman, Cooper & Company, San Francisco, 1968.Google Scholar
[11] Knight, F., Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New York, 1921.Google Scholar
[12] McKinney, J. C., Constructive Typology and Social Theory, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1966.Google Scholar
[13] Rudner, R. S., Philosophy of Social Science, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, 1966.Google Scholar
[14] Scriven, M., “The Key Property of Physical Laws—Inaccuracy,” Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science (ed. Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G.), Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1961, pp. 91–101.Google Scholar
[15] Scriven, M., “The Limits of Physical Explanation,” Philosophy of Science: The Delaware Seminar (ed. Baumrin, B.), Volume 2, Interscience Publishers, New York, 1963, pp. 107–135.Google Scholar
[16] Weber, M., The Methodology of the Social Sciences (trans. and ed. E. A. Shils and H. A. Finch), The Free Press, Glencoe, 1949.Google Scholar