Abstract

The dissertation addresses the issue of theory change in science and the role observation plays in determining theory choice. Three views are examined and contrasted: the traditional logical empiricist view, Kuhn's view that theory change is "revolutionary," and Quine's view that theory change is "evolutionary." The issues which separate the three views of theory change focus heavily on the nature of observation sentences and the extent to which they can be said to provide a theory neutral evidential basis for theory evaluation. I argue that the "evolutionary" view is correct and develop a conception of how observation sentences provide theory neutral evidence for theory evaluation which is different from the traditional empiricist conception