Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T12:16:46.732Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Presentations and the Status of Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

James Griesemer
James Griesemer*
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Accounts of the structure of scientific theories in twentieth century philosophy of science have tended to focus on epistemological questions to the near exclusion of the metaphysical consequences of their solutions. This emphasis can be understood as resulting from the interest and concerns of the logical positivist movement and continued by proponents of the so-called “received view” of theories (Suppe 1977). One area where this division of interest has been a barrier to progress is understanding the growth of scientific knowledge.

While philosophers as diverse as Nagel, Hempel, Kuhn, and Lakatos have attempted to explain the historical course of science, they have largely built their views on foundations designed to explicate the relation between theories (paradigms, scientific research programs) and the world. Thus, the received view's model of progress via theory (or indeed, whole science) reduction (e.g., Nagel 1961) rests on its largely syntactic/logical account of theory structure.

Type
Part IV. Laws and Theories
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1984 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1984 , 1984 , pp. 102 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1984

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.)

Footnotes

1

I thank John Damuth, G. J. Mattey and the reviewers for helpful discussions and correcting a number of mistakes. I hope the mistakes remaining are the fruitful ones.

References

Austin, J.L. (1962). How to Do Things With Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Beatty, J. (1981). “What's Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory?” In PSA 1980. Volume 2. Edited by P.D. Asquith and R.N. Giere. East Lansing: Michigan Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 397-126.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. and Cracraft, J. (1980). Phylogenetio Patterns and the Evolutionary Process. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Griesemer, J.R. (1983). Communication and Scientific Change: An Analysis of Conceptual Maps in the Macroevolution Controversy. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Griesemer, J.R. (1984) “The Logic of Conceptual Maps.” Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Hempel, C.G. (1970). “On the ‘Standard Conception’ of Scientific Theories.” In Analyses of Theories and Methods of Physics and Psychology. (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume IV.) Edited by Michael Radner and Stephen Winokur. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Pages 142-163.Google Scholar
Hull, D.L. (1978a). “Altruism in Science: a Sociobiological Model of Co-operative Behaviour Among Scientists.” Animal Behaviour 26: 685-697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D.L.. (1978b). “A Matter of Individuality.” Philosophy of Science 45: 335-360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D.L. (1980a). “Exemplars and Essences.” Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Hull, D.L.. (1980b). “Individuality and Selection.” In Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics Volume 11. Edited by Johnston, R.F. Frank, P.W. and Michener, C.D. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews Inc. Pages 311-332.Google Scholar
Hull, D.L.. (1982). “The Naked Meme.” Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Hull, D.L.. (1983). “Darwinism as an Historical Entity: An Historio-graphic Proposal.” Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970). “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by Lakatos, A. and Musgrave, I.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pages 91-195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lande, R. (1976). “Natural Selection and Random Genetic Drift in Phenotypic Evolution.” Evolution 30: 314-334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNelll, D. (1979). The Conceptual Basis of Language. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961). The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. (1935). Logik der Forschung. Wien: J. Springer. (As reprinted as The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper 4 Row, 1968.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sowa, J.F (1984). Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishers.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (ed.). (1977). The Structure of Scientific Theories. 2nd ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1967). “What is a Scientific Theory?” In Philosophy of Science Today. Edited by Morgenbesser, S.. New York: Basic Books. Pages 55-67.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. (1983). “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory: A Semantic Approach.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 11: 215-229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1971). “From Logical Systems to Conceptual Populations.” In PSA 1970. (Boston Studies In Philosophy of Science. Volume 8.) Edited by Buck, R. and Cohen, R.. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Pages ‘ 552-564.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1972). Human Understanding. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1972). “A Formal Approach to the Philosophy of Science.” In Paradigms and Paradoxes. (University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science. Volume 5.) Edited by R. Colodny. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Pages 303-366.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. (1970). “Deducing the Consequences of Evolution: A Mathematical Model.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 29: 343-385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W.C. (1980). “Reductionistic Research Strategies and Their Biases in the Units of Selection Controversy.” In Scientific Discovery. Case Studies. (Boston Studies In the Philosophy of Science, Volume 60.) Edited by Nickles, T.. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Pages 213-259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W.C. (1981). “Robustness, Reliability, and Overdetermination.” In Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences. Edited by Brewer, M. and Collins, B.. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Pages 124-163.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W.C. (1983). “A Grant Proposal to the Systems Development Foundation.” Unpublished.Google Scholar