Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:26:19.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Constitution of Domains In Science: A Linguistic Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Paul Mattick Jr.
Paul Mattick Jr.*
Affiliation:
Bennington College and Center for the Social Sciences, Columbia University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The last twenty-five years have seen a major shift in the philosophy of science, from a focus on the logical syntax of the language of science to attempts, based often on detailed historical research, to understand the development of scientific accounts of the world. The once “Received View” of logical empiricism assumed the adequacy of an analysis of scientific knowledge in terms of interpreted logical systems. The limitations of logic as a framework for analysis of the language of science became apparent for what one might call internal and external reasons. Internally, the attempt to formalize the logical syntax of science led to the emergence to view of fundamental problems with the logical construal of laws and with the concept of confirmation.

Type
Part VI. General Philosophy of Science (B)
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1986 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1986 , 1986 , pp. 333 - 341
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1986

Footnotes

1

Work on which this paper is based was carried out with support from the Division of Information science and technology in the National Science Foundation.

References

Carnap, Rudolf. (1934). Logisohe Syntax der Spraohe. Wien: Verlag Julius Springer. (As reprinted with revisions as The Logical Syntax of Language , (trans.) A. Smeaton. London: Kegan Paul Trench, Truber & Co., 1937.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, L. and Haull, N. (1977). “Interfield Theories.” Philosophy of Science 44: 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Z.S. (1968). Mathematical Structures of Language. New York: Wiley/Intersicence.Google Scholar
Harris, Z.S (1976a). “On a Theory of Language.” Journal of Philosophy 73; 253–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Z.S. (1976b). “A Theory of Language Structure.” American Philosophical Quarterly 13: 237–255.Google Scholar
Harris, Z.S. (1982). A Grammar of English on Mathematical Principles. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Harris, Z.S. et al. (Forthcoming). The Form of Information in Science. (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. ) Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Kittredge, R. and Lehrberger, J (eds.). (1982). Sublanguage: Studies on Language in Restricted Semantic Domain. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattick, P. (Forthcoming). “Extending the Analysis: The Informational Environment of the Science Sentences.” In Harris et al. (Forthcoming). Chapter 6.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V.O (1960). Word and Object. New York: Technology Press and John Wiley.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1982). “The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy.” Philosophy of Science 49: 485–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, D. (1984). Reason and the Search for Knowledge. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar