Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:19:25.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analyticity Without an Observational-Theoretical Distinction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Mark Tamthai
Mark Tamthai*
Affiliation:
Chulalongkorn University Bangkok, Thailand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The problem we are concerned with in this paper is that of separating out, among the consequences of an empirical theory, those that play a purely linguistic role (the “analytic” consequences) from the rest. This problem we shall refer to as the problem of theoretical analyticity. In a sense, the problem was solved by Carnap's proposal (p. 270) to consider the analytic consequences to be exactly the consequences of a special sentence associated with each theory, along with results of Winnie, which gave further justification to this proposal. Besides Carnap's proposal there have been other attempts to solve the problem of theoretical analyticity (e.g.,). However, all such attempts (including Carnap's) have relied upon a distinction between observation and theoretical terms in the language of empirical theories. Since there has been much debate concerning this distinction, and since there do not seem to be any good reasons why “analyticity” should be tied so closely to it, we shall attempt to attack the problem of theoretical analyticity without assuming an observation-theory distinction among the vocabulary of empirical theories.

Type
Part III. Observation and Theory
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1978 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1978 , 1978 , pp. 109 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 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

Carnap, R. Philosophical Foundations of Physics (ed.) Gardner, Martin. New York: Basic Books, 1966.Google Scholar
Craig, W. “On Axiomatizability Within a System.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 18(1953): 30–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P.K. “An Attempt at a Realistic Interpretation of Experience.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 58 (1957-58): 144–170.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P.K. “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism.” In Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time. (Minnesota Studies in Philosophy of Science, Volume III.) Edited by Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1970. Pages 28–97.Google Scholar
Kleene, S.C. “Finite Axiomatizability of Theories in the Predicate Calculus Using Additional Predicate Symbols.” Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, 10(1960): 27–68.Google Scholar
Popper, K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books, 1959. (Originally published as Logik der Forschung. Wien: J. Springer, 1935.)Google Scholar
Przelecki, M. and Wojcicki, R. “The Problem of Analyticity.” Synthese 19(1969): 374–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W.V. Word and Object. Cambridge, Ma.: M.I.T. Press, 1960.Google Scholar
Rogers, H. Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.Google Scholar
Winnie, J. “Theoretical Analyticity.” In PSA 1970. (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 8.) Edited by Buck, R.C. and Cohen, R.S.. Boston: D. Reidel, 1970. Pages 289–365.Google Scholar