This paper argues for the importance of approaching medicine, as a theoretical science, through values. The normative concepts of benefit and harm are held to provide a framework for the analysis of medicine which reflects the obligations of the doctor-patient relationship, suffices to define the key concept of medical relevance, yields a general necessary condition for the basic concepts of medicine, explains the role of such nonnormative conceptions as discomfort, dysfunction, and incapacity, and avoids the mistakes of other normative approaches which hold that unhealthy conditions are disvaluable or should be treated. Neutralist analyses are criticized, especially those approaching health through proper functioning.

Russell's introduction of negative facts to account for the truth of “negative” sentences or beliefs rests on his collaboration with Wittgenstein in such efforts as the characterization of formal necessity, the theory of logical atomism, and the use of the Ideal Language. In examining their views we arrive at two conclusions. First, that the issue of negative facts is distinct from questions of meaning or intentionality; what a sentence or belief means or is about rather than what makes it true or false. Second, that the ontological use of the Ideal Language is incompatible with the requirements of its employment in the logical study of inferences. On this basis we conclude that despite elaborations by recent proponents, the doctrine of negative facts lacks adequate support, and perhaps more importantly, it is proper ontological method to free the Ideal Language from the exigencies of a symbolism constructed for logical investigation.

This paper presents an argument for the claim that historical events are unique in a nontrivial sense which entails the inapplicability of the Hempelian D-N model to historical explanations. Some previous criticisms of Hempel are shown to be general criticisms of the D-N model which can be outflanked in cases where a reduction to fundamental laws is available. I then survey grounds for denying that explanations by reasons can be effectively reduced to causal explanations, and for rejecting methodological individualism. I conclude with some positive remarks concerning the structure of historical explanations and sense in which historical events are unique.

In this paper I want to cast doubt on the claim that there is a legitimate process of reasoning to the best explanation which can serve as an alternative to either straightforward inductive reasoning or a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning. I shall argue a) that paradigmatic cases of acceptable arguments to the best explanation must be considered enthymemes and b) that when the suppressed premises are made explicit we have all of the premises we need to present either a straightforward inductive argument or an argument employing both induction and deduction.

In a recent book, Laudan has put forward a new and provocative theory of scientific progress. In this discussion we shall show that some of the claims which Laudan presents as new, are (or at least can be made into) parts of more “traditional” wisdom. In particular (in Section 1) we shall criticize his claim to have uncovered a new class of non-refuting anomalies for theories. We shall also (in section 2) criticize Laudan's view that a theory may have an anomaly because of conflict with non-scientific theories—as long as those theories are perceived of as rational. Laudan's view of theory-assessment—via the assessment of “research traditions”—is also examined in this section. It is found to be a significant departure from both traditional, and more radical (Lakatosian, Kuhnian, Feyerabendian) alternatives. Finally, (in Section 3), we examine Laudan's claim that theories may have anomalies because of conflict with methodological theories.

This paper concerns the problem of how to give historical explanations of scientist's decisions to prefer one theory over another. It is argued that such explanations ought to contain only statements about the beliefs and preferences of the agents involved, and, in particular, ought not to include evaluative premises about the theories themselves. It is argued that Lakatos's attempt to build into such historical explanations premises of an evaluative kind is deficient. The arguments of Laudan to the effect that such explanations depend crucially upon evaluative assumptions about the rationality or irrationality of decisions are examined. It is argued that they do not establish the need for such assumptions.

Similar criticisms are then shown to be applicable to a version of the ‘hermeneutical’ model of explanation for human actions.

Algebraic theories for extensive measurement are traditionally framed in terms of a binary relation ≲ and a concatenation (x,y) → xy. For situations in which the data is “noisy,” it is proposed here to consider each expression y ≲ x as symbolizing an event in a probability space. Denoting P(x,y) the probability of such an event, two theories are discussed corresponding to the two representing relations: with

Axiomatic analyses are given, and representation theorems are proven in detail.

In this paper, I examine a number of alternative global structures for Newtonian space-time, and corresponding Newtonian theories of mechanics and gravitation. I argue that since these theories differ only with respect to questions concerning the relative distribution of inertial and gravitational forces, the choice between them is a matter of convention. Therefore, the global structure of Newtonian space-time is also a matter of convention. Since this result is based on a consideration of the nature of inertial and gravitational forces, rather than on general reductionist principles, it is a “limited conventionalist” result.

I am grateful to Brendan Minogue (1978) for his careful and detailed discussion of the concept of “intensional reference” (IR) as it appears in my book The Structure of Scientific Inference (1974). He concludes that my account contains some important inconsistencies that vitiate my attempt to reconcile the idea of cumulative acquisition of scientific knowledge with radically changing theories. He rightly sees that this attempt depends crucially on the account of translatability between theories, and this in turn upon the notion of “identity of intensional reference.” This means that the attempt fails if there are inconsistencies in the concept of IR. Since Minogue's careful analysis nevertheless contains some misunderstandings, I must plead guilty to a number of unclarities, but I do not believe there are basic inconsistencies. Let me try again.

Reichenbach's well-known distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification has recently come under attack from several quarters. In this paper I attempt to reconsider the distinction and evaluate various recent criticisms of it. These criticisms fall into two main groups: those which directly challenge Reichenbach's distinction; and those which (I argue) indirectly but no less seriously challenge that distinction by rejecting the related distinction between psychology and epistemology, and defending the “naturalizing” of epistemology. I argue that these recent criticisms fail, and that the distinction remains an important conceptual tool necessary for an adequate understanding of the way in which scientific claims purport to appropriately portray our natural environment.

In (Cupples 1977), it was argued that Professor David Kaplan's model of S-explanation could be formulated so as to provide a unified framework for three types of explanation, viz., potential, rationally acceptable, and true. In this note I correct an error in the statement of the conditions for a potential direct S-explanans, show that the corrected version leads to a further simplification in the conditions of the model, and propose a fourth type of explanation which the framework of S-explanation can accommodate.

An attractive and apparently indestructible idea about confirmation is that a hypothesis h is confirmed by evidence e if h is a logical consequence of e, or of h and the right sort of other stuff. This idea was advanced in various ways by Ayer (1936), Hempel (1965), Carnap (1959), and still recurs constantly in discussions of confirmation; recently for example, in Schlesinger (1976) and Horwich (1978). The typical modern version of the idea goes like this: a sentence h is confirmed by a sentence e with respect to a theory T if e is true and h & T is consistent and h & T entails e (hereafter, h & T ⊢ e) but T does not entail e (hereafter, T ⊬ e).

In (Nelson 1976b) I used Turing machine arguments to show that computers can recognize humanly recognizable patterns in principle. In 1978 James D. Heffernan has expressed some doubts about such arguments. He does not question the propositions that I defend in the paper, nor the specific arguments in their support. What he does criticize are certain background assumptions.