The Nature of Theories

We model scientific theories as Bayesian networks. Nodes carry credences and function as abstract representations of propositions within the structure. Directed links carry conditional probabilities and represent connections between those propositions. Updating is Bayesian across the network as a whole. The impact of evidence at one point within a scientific theory can have a very different impact on the network than does evidence of the same strength at a different point. A Bayesian model allows us to envisage and analyze the (...) differential impact of evidence and credence change at different points within a single network and across different theoretical structures. (shrink)

Reformulating a scientific theory often leads to a significantly different way of understanding the world. Nevertheless, accounts of both theoretical equivalence and scientific understanding have neglected this important aspect of scientific theorizing. This essay provides a positive account of how reformulation changes our understanding. My account simultaneously addresses a serious challenge facing existing accounts of scientific understanding. These accounts have failed to characterize understanding in a way that goes beyond the epistemology of scientific explanation. By focusing on cases in which (...) we have differences in understanding without differences in explanation, I show that understanding does not reduce to explanation. (shrink)

(1) In the first part of this paper, I review Chomsky's meandering journey from the formalism/mentalism of Syntactic Structures, through several methodological positions, to the minimalist theory of his latest work. Infected with mentalism from first to last, each and every position vitiates Chomsky's repeated claims that his theories will provide useful guidance to later theories in such fields as cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience. With the guidance of his insights, he claims, psychologists and neuroscientists will be able to avoid (...) costly dead-end lines of research. -/- (2) This never happened. As I have shown, this never could have happened. (See Johnston, 2018). What has happened, instead, is that current neurolinguistic research (with the arguable exception of the now-dated Lemma Model of Willem Levelt) proceeds without reference to Chomsky. It also wholeheartedly rejects the mentalism of the associated Language of Thought theory of Jerry Fodor. (See Johnston, 2018). -/- (3) I make this argument in the first part of this paper. I would also like to point out that most of my argument was developed in 1972, when I was a graduate student. I know of no other sustained criticisms of Chomsky at that time, and certainly none along the lines I had developed back then. -/- (4) In the second part of this paper, I present my own account of the methodology of science. When I was a graduate student, philosophy of science was dominated by an attempt to describe a methodology common to all the specific sciences, i.e. Hempel’s deductive-nomological model. These days, Hempel’s emphasis on the methodological unity of science has been rejected by such “dis-unity” philosophers of science as Ian Hacking, Patrick Suppes and Nancy Cartwright (see Cat, 2021). -/- (5) I view this change as the swing of a pendulum or, to change the metaphor, a journey from one end point of a continuum to another. As the level of abstraction at which one tries to describe scientific method is raised, the descriptions become increasingly general. Whether or not unity-of-science theories become so general as to be vacuous, is ultimately a subjective judgment. And so I expect that philosophers will eventually become tired of increasingly specific “close to the workbench” descriptions of how scientists work, and begin to turn back to methodological “big pictures”, finding in them powerful abstractions rather than empty irrelevancies. -/- (6) In the second part of this paper, I present my own account of the methodology of science, which I would situate somewhere between the “unity” and “dis-unity” accounts. However, I am not a scientist. My own views about scientific method have three origins: -/- (6a) my work as a graduate student from 1966 until I passed my comprehensive exams in 1973 (at a different university); -/- (6b) reading every issue of Scientific American from 1972 until nearly 2000, (at which point I continued to read it only sporadically, since I concluded that, around that time, it had evolved from a serious science magazine to a popular science magazine); and -/- (6c) my three-year immersion in the cognitive neuroscience of language after I retired, based on repeated study of and note-taking for (Banesh & Compton, 2018), (Kemmerer, 2015), several other books and, finally, numerous articles not hidden behind a paywall. -/- So, as always with my writings: caveat emptor. (shrink)

Philosophers sometimes give arguments that presuppose the following principle: two theories can fail to be empirically equivalent on the sole basis that they present different “thick” metaphysical pictures of the world. Recently, a version of this principle has been invoked to respond to the argument that composite objects are dispensable to our best scientific theories. This response claims that our empirical evidence distinguishes between ordinary and composite-free theories, and it empirically favors the ordinary ones. In this paper, I ask whether (...) this response to the dispensability argument is tenable. I claim that it is not. This is because it presupposes an indefensible thesis about when two empirical consequences are distinct or the same. My argument provides some insight into what our empirical consequences are, and I conclude that empirical evidence is radically metaphysically neutral. This gives us some insight into the significant content of our scientific theories—the content that a scientific realist is committed to—and I show how this insight relates to questions about theoretical equivalence more broadly. (shrink)

Reichenbach’s early solution to the scientific problem of how abstract mathematical representations can successfully express real phenomena is rooted in his view of coordination. In this paper, I claim that a Reichenbach-inspired, ‘layered’ view of coordination provides us with an effective tool to systematically analyse some epistemic and conceptual intricacies resulting from a widespread theorising strategy in evolutionary biology, recently discussed by Okasha (2018) as ‘endogenization’. First, I argue that endogenization is a form of extension of natural selection theory that (...) comprises three stages: quasi-axiomatisation, functional extension, and semantic extension. Then, I argue that the functional extension of one core principle of natural selection theory, namely, the principle of heritability, requires the semantic extension of the concept of inheritance. This is because the semantic extension of ‘inheritance’ is necessary to establish a novel form of coordination between the principle of heritability and the extended domain of phenomena that it is supposed to represent. Finally, I suggest that – despite the current lack of consensus on the right semantic extension of ‘inheritance’ – we can fruitfully understand the reconceptualization of ‘inheritance’ provided by niche construction theorists as the result of a novel form of coordination. (shrink)

This article explains Kant’s claim that sciences must take, at least as their ideal, the form of a ‘system’. I argue that Kant’s notion of systematicity can be understood against the background of de Jong & Betti’s Classical Model of Science (2010) and the writings of Georg Friedrich Meier and Johann Heinrich Lambert. According to my interpretation, Meier, Lambert, and Kant accepted an axiomatic idea of science, articulated by the Classical Model, which elucidates their conceptions of systematicity. I show that (...) Kant’s critique of the mathematical method is compatible with his adherence to this axiomatic conception of science. I further show that systematicity furthers traditionally accepted logical ideals of scientific knowledge, which explains why Meier and Kant think that sciences must be ‘systematic’. (shrink)

Formal criteria of theoretical equivalence are mathematical mappings between specific sorts of mathematical objects, notably including those objects used in mathematical physics. Proponents of formal criteria claim that results involving these criteria have implications that extend beyond pure mathematics. For instance, they claim that formal criteria bear on the project of using our best mathematical physics as a guide to what the world is like, and also have deflationary implications for various debates in the metaphysics of physics. In this paper, (...) I investigate whether there is a defensible view according to which formal criteria have significant non-mathematical implications, of these sorts or any other, reaching a chiefly negative verdict. Along the way, I discuss various foundational issues concerning how we use mathematical objects to describe the world when doing physics, and how this practice should inform metaphysics. I diagnose the prominence of formal criteria as stemming from contentious views on these foundational issues, and endeavor to motivate some alternative views in their stead. (shrink)

Van Fraassen infers the truth of the contextual theory from his observation that it has passed a crucial test. Mizrahi infers the comparative truth of our best theories from his observation that they are more successful than their competitors. Their inferences require, according to the argument from double spaces, the prior belief that it is more likely that their target theories were pulled out from the T-space than from the O-space. The T-space is the logical space of unconceived theories whose (...) appearances agree with their realities; the O-space is the logical space of unconceived theories whose appearances may agree or disagree with their realities. (shrink)

A given explanatory theory T falls into circular reasoning if the only way to determine its explanandum is through the application of T. To find an underlying theory T′ that determines T′s explanandum helps us save T from this accusation of circularity. We follow the structuralist view of theories in presenting and dealing with this issue, by applying it to particular theories. More specifically, we focus on the relationship between the Darwinian theory of common ancestry and the determination of homologies.

A map is not its territory. Taking a map too seriously may lead to pernicious reification: map and world are conflated. As one family of cases of such reification, I focus on maps exuding the omphalos syndrome, whereby a centred location on the map is taken to be the world navel of, for instance, an empire. I build on themes from my book _When Maps Become the World_, in which I analogize scientific theories to maps, and develop the tools of (...) assumption archaeology and integration platforms. Here I argue that excavating assumptions helps fill cartographic silences, showing the limitations of perspectives often at war. Furthermore, integrating perspectives permits resisting imperial central or master images. A worthwhile future project would be a repository of world-navel maps, critically annotated with cultural context and imperial information. Mutual understanding may result from such an integration platform, perhaps implemented online or in a museum. (shrink)

I discuss Mary Hess’s interaction-view of scientific metaphor, outline an alternative view and show how it may prove fruitful when applied to chapters of the history of science. I start with a reconstruction of the discussion on the nature of scientific models and on their relationship to metaphors that has taken place in the Anglo-Saxon philosophy of Science starting from the Fifties; the discovery started with Stephen Pepper and Kenneth Burke, reaching Thomas Kuhn, Marx Wartofsky, and George Lakoff via Max (...) Black's and Mary Hesse's interaction view. I argue that Hesse's view has a number of weak points: uncritically accepting Black's idea of "interaction", for keeping too much of a logical empiricist view of observation language, and for keeping too much of a Scholastic distinction between formal and material analogy. I argue that a few insights from Kuhn and Wartofsky seem to go in the same direction as Granger's view of metaphor as opposed to metonymy, thus severing the link between metaphor and the "qualitative". I argue that the Cartesian legacy and its implicit ideal of a "mirroring" relationship between the world and the mind is the main obstacle to be eventually overcome if we are to work out a satisfactory account of the language of science and that suggestions from pragmatism as well as from French epistemology may be used in order to work out a post-Cartesian view of science. (shrink)

Problemele filosofie sensibile pe care le pune aplicabilitatea matematicii în ştiinţe şi viaţa de zi cu zi au conturat, pe un fond interdisciplinar, o nouă “ramură” a filosofiei ştiinţei, anume filosofia aplicabilităţii matematicii. Aplicarea cu succes a matematicii de-a lungul istoriei ştiinţei necesită reprezentare, încadrare, explicaţie, dar şi o justificare de ordin metateoretic a aplicabilităţii. Între rolurile matematicii în practica ştiinţifică, rolul constitutiv teoriilor ştiinţifice este cel a cărui analiză poate contribui esenţial la această justificare. În lucrarea de faţă, am (...) analizat acest rol constitutiv prin prisma relaţiilor sale cu celelalte roluri importante ale matematicii (descriptiv-semantic-reprezentaţional, inferenţial-explicativ-predictiv), încercând să surprind motivaţia primară a acestui rol relativ la ideea de structură matematică şi epistemică, componente esenţiale ale ştiinţei structurale matematizate. (shrink)

Lucrarea tratează unul dintre “misterele” filosofiei analitice şi ale raţionalităţii însăşi, anume aplicabilitatea matematicii în ştiinţe şi în investigarea matematică a realităţii înconjurătoare, a cărei filosofie este dezvoltată în jurul sintagmei – de acum paradigmatice – ‘eficacitatea iraţională a matematicii’, aparţinând fizicianului Eugene Wigner, problemă filosofică etichetată în literatură drept “puzzle-ul lui Wigner”. Odată intraţi în profunzimea acestei probleme, investigaţia nu trebuie limitată la căutarea unor răspunsuri explicative la întrebări precum “Ce este de fapt aplicabilitatea matematicii?”, “Cum explicăm prezenţa în (...) natură a conceptelor matematice simple şi complexe?” sau “Cum explicăm rata de succes uriaşă a aplicaţiilor matematice, care presupun modele aproximativ false ale unei realităţi idealizate?”, ci extinsă în plan metateoretic către căutarea unei justificări teoretice a utilizării metodei matematice în practica ştiinţifică, independent de succesul acestei metode. Aceste întrebări şi probleme sunt abordate în detaliu în lucrarea de faţă. Lucrarea, care va continua cu un al doilea titlu, dedicat modelelor teoretice ale aplicabilităţii şi alternativelor structurale ale acestora, se adresează în special – dar nu exclusiv – matematicienilor, fizicienilor, filosofilor ştiinţei, filosofilor limbajului şi epistemologilor, dar şi studenţilor acestor discipline. (shrink)

The classical (set-theoretic) concept of structure has become essential for every contemporary account of a scientific theory, but also for the metatheoretical accounts dealing with the adequacy of such theories and their methods. In the latter category of accounts, and in particular, the structural metamodels designed for the applicability of mathematics have struggled over the last decade to justify the use of mathematical models in sciences beyond their 'indispensability' in terms of either method or concepts/entities. In this paper, I argue (...) that these metamodels employ structures of different natures and epistemologies, and this diversity does pose a serious problem to the intended justification. (shrink)

The paper is an examination of Michael Friedman’s analysis of the conceptual structure of Einstein’s theory of gravitation, with a particular focus on a number of critical reactions to it. Friedman argues that conceptual frameworks in physics are stratified, and that a satisfactory analysis of a framework requires us to recognize the differences in epistemological character of its components. He distinguishes first-level principles that define a framework of empirical investigation from second-level principles that are formulable in that framework. On his (...) account, the theory of Riemannian manifolds and the equivalence principle define the framework of empirical investigation in which Einstein’s field equations are an intellectual and empirical possibility. Friedman is a major interpreter of relativity and his view has provoked a number of critical reactions, nearly all of which miss the mark. I aim to free Friedman’s analysis of Einsteinian gravitation from a baggage of misconceptions and to defend the notion that physical theories are stratified. But I, too, am a critic and I criticize Friedman’s view on several counts, notably his account of a constitutive principle and that of the principle of equivalence. (shrink)

Newtonian mechanics is more than just an empirically successful theory of matter in motion: it is an account of what knowledge of the physical world should look like. But what is this account? What is distinctive about it? To answer these questions, I begin by introducing the laws of motion, the relations among them, and the spatio-temporal framework that is implicit in them. Then I turn to the question of their methodological character. This has been the locus of philosophical discussion (...) from Newton’s time to the present, and I survey the views of some of the major contributors. I show that while Newtonian mechanics motivates a number of philosophical ideas about force, mass, motion, and causality – and through this, ideas about space and time – the laws are themselves the outcome of a philosophical or critical conceptual analysis. (shrink)

Some of the problem areas in which British philosophers of science have recently been engaged are described and some of the major contributions noted. Two sets of problems are given special attention: one concerned with the analysis of probability statements and one concerned with the appraisal of scientific theories. Three traditions in the approach to this second set of problems are distinguished. These might be called the Carnapian, the Popperian and the Wittgensteinian traditions.

Scientific theories are analyzed in terms of the role that they play in science rather than in terms of their logical structure. It is maintained that theories: provide descriptions of the fundamental features of their domains; on the basis of 1, explain non-fundamental features of their domains; provide a guide for further research in their domains. Any set of propositions that carries out these functions with respect to some domain counts as a theory. This view of theories is developed and (...) defended, and provides the basis for reconsidering a number of issues in the philisophy of science. It is argued that theories need not be unrestrictedly universal with respect to space and time; that the distinction between observable and theoretical entities fails because observables do function as theoretical entities in scientific theories, that there is no genuine philosophical problem of reduction; that the notion of "levels" can be replaced by the notion of "domains"; and that theories are the basic unit of scientific knowledge. (shrink)

This thesis is a contribution to the foundations of space-time theories. It examines the proper understanding of the Newtonian and 1905 inertial frame concepts and the critical analysis of these concepts that was motivated by the equivalence principle. This is the hypothesis that it is impossible to distinguish locally between a homogeneous gravitational field and a uniformly accelerated frame. The three essays that comprise this thesis address, in one way or another, the criteria through which the inertial frame concepts are (...) articulated. They address the place of these concepts in the conceptual framework of physics and their significance for our understanding of space and time. In Chapter 2, I examine two claims that arise in Brown’s account of inertia. Brown claims there is something objectionable about the way in which the motions of free particles in Newtonian theory and special relativity are coordinated. Brown also claims that since a geodesic principle can be derived in Einsteinian gravitation the objectionable feature is explained away. I argue that there is nothing objectionable about inertia and that, while the theorems that motivate Brown’s claim can be said to figure in a deductive-nomological explanation, their main contribution lies in their explication rather than their explanation of inertial motion. In Chapter 3, I examine Friedman’s recent approach to the analysis of physical theories. Friedman argues that the identification of certain principles as "constitutive" is essential to the correct methodological analysis of physics. I explicate Friedman’s characterisation of a constitutive principle and his account of the constitutive principles that Newtonian and Einsteinian gravitation presuppose for their formulation. I argue that something very close to Friedman’s view is defensible. In Chapter 4, I examine the so-called background-independence that Einsteinian gravitation is said to exemplify. This concept has figured in the work of Rovelli, Smolin, Giulini, and Belot, among others. I propose three ways of fixing the extension of background-independence, and I argue that there is something chimaerical about the concept. I argue, however, that there is a proposal that clarifies the feature of Einsteinian gravitation that motivates the concept. (shrink)

Van Fraassen, like Popper before him, assumes that confirmation and disconfirmation relations are logical relations and thus hold only among abstract items. This raises a problem about how experience, for Popper, and observables, for van Fraassen, enter into epistemic evaluations. Each philosopher offers a drastic proposal: Popper holds that basic statements are accepted by convention; van Fraassen introduces his “pragmatic tautology.” Another alternative is to reject the claim that all evaluative relations are logical relations. Ayer proposed this option in responding (...) to Popper, as did Sosa in a different context. I argue that this option should be pursued and propose a line of research that the option suggests.Keywords: Popper; van Fraassen; Representation; Confirmation; Logic; Cognitive abilities. (shrink)

The arts and the sciences perform many of the same cognitive functions, both serving to advance understanding. This paper explores some of the ways exemplification operates in the two fields. Both scientific experiments and works of art highlight, underscore, display, or convey some of their own features. They thereby focus attention on them, and make them available for examination and projection. Thus, the Michelson-Morley experiment exemplifies the constancy of the speed of light. Jackson Pollock's "Number One" exemplifies the viscosity of (...) paint. Despite their similarities, science and art might seem to differ in their attitude toward facts. Science is said to adhere to facts; art, to be indifferent to them. Such, I urge, is not the case. Science, like art, often scorns fact to advance understanding through fiction. Thought experiments, I contend, are scientific fictions; literary and pictorial fictions, aesthetic thought experiments. (shrink)

It is widely accepted in contemporary philosophy of science that the domain of application of a theory is typically larger than its explanatory covering power: theories can be applied to phenomena that they do not explain. I argue for an analogous thesis regarding the notion of empirical adequacy. A theory's domain of application is typically larger than its domain of empirical adequacy: theories are often applied to phenomena from which they receive no empirical confirmation. \\\ Existe en la filosofía de (...) la ciencia actual un amplio consenso al afirmar que el dominio de aplicación de una teoría científica es en general mucho más extenso que su dominio explicativo: las teorías científicas pueden ser aplicadas a fenómenos que no son capaces de explicar. En este artículo defiendo una tesis análoga con respecto a la noción de adecuación empírica. El dominio de aplicación de las teorías científicas es en general mucho mas amplio que su dominio de adecuacion empírica: las teorías a menudo se aplican a fenómenos que no proporcionan confirmatión empírica a su favor. (shrink)

Conceptual merits of a theory are important for its acceptance. According to the traditionally held view, theory acceptance depends mainly on empirical support or confirmation. This paper argues that a new theory has also to cohere with already accepted theories to be accepted. In other words, confirmation alone is insufficient for acceptance. Coherence, like simplicity and internal consistency, is a conceptual merit. Coherence between theories, according to this paper, consists in agreement on the main concepts and mutual support. That is, (...) two theories cohere with each other when they do not differ on the principal notions and assumptions and also provide support for each other. (shrink)

To consider Pierre Duhem’s conception of natural classification as the aim of physical theory, along with his instrumentalist view on its nature, sets up an inconsistency in his philosophy of science which has not yet been solved. This paper argues that to solve it we have to take Duhem on his own terms and that a solution can only be found by interpreting his philosophy as an articulated system which necessarily involves the following connections: 1. The association of natural classification (...) to the thesis of historical continuity as an essential condition to the possibility of assigning a goal to the evolution of physical theory, 2. The connection of Pascal’s esprit de finesse to Duhem’s conception of analogy as a heuristic criterion to the conception of hypotheses that are able to lead physical theory to an end that aims to approach the real structure of the world. (shrink)

Edited by Alessandro Minelli and Thomas Pradeu, Towards a Theory of Development gathers essays by biologists and philosophers, which display a diversity of theoretical perspectives. The discussions not only cover the state of art, but broaden our vision of what development includes and provide pointers for future research. Interestingly, all contributors agree that explanations should not just be gene-centered, and virtually none use design and other engineering metaphors to articulate principles of cellular and organismal organization. I comment in particular on (...) the issue of how to construe the notion of a ‘theory’ and whether developmental biology has or should aspire to have theories, which four of the contributions discuss in detail while taking opposing positions. Beyond construing a theory in terms of its empirical content, my aim is to shift the focus toward the role that theories have for guiding future scientific theorizing and practice. Such a conception of ‘theory’ is particularly important in the context of development, because arriving at a theoretical framework that provides guidance for the discipline of developmental biology as a whole is more plausible than a unified representation of development across all taxa. (shrink)

The traditional sciences have always had trouble with ambiguity. Through the imposition of “enabling constraints” -- making a set of assumptions and then declaring ceteris paribus -- science can bracket away ambiguity. These enabling constraints take the form of uncritically examined presuppositions or “uceps.” Second order science examines variations in values assumed for these uceps and looks at the resulting impacts on related scientific claims. After rendering explicit the role of uceps in scientific claims, the scientific method is used to (...) question rarely challenged assertions. This article lays out initial foundations for second order science, its ontology, methodology, and implications. (shrink)

Symptoms of Unknown Origin: A Medical Odyssey details exceptions to the prevailing viewpoint of doctors, which is that the best way to diagnose and treat patients is by using the biomolecular model of disease.

This book is . . . a survey history of medicine from the earliest times, centered thematically on how changing concepts of disease have affected its management. . . . One finds a gratifying mastery of recent as well as classic scholarship in medical history and a careful sidestepping of positivistic excesses. . . . Disease and Its Control is a fresh and welcome synthesis of historical scholarship that will be accessible to interested laymen. (Annals of Internal Medicine).

I noted two directions in which the scientific worker is seeking to advance. He is trying to give a more complete account of the actual detail of what is happening, and he is seeking wider and wider generalizations. As an observer, he must note what he observes, and, it would seem, omit nothing. But in seeking generalizations he must select, from among the features he observes, only those which he takes to be of general significance. Thence arises at least the (...) appearance of a conflict in his activities. If he is too intent on the details of what he observes, his generalizations suffer; but if he leaves aside details too readily, his generalizations suffer equally. There is danger both in omitting and in not omitting. (shrink)

Presents a new analysis of the structure of scientific theories by turning the traditionally logical-epistemological problem into the problem of the explanation of various social uses of theories. The thesis addresses what semantic structures determine the meaning of the terms of scientific theories, and how they do it. The author's reconstruction of interpretation is based on the semantic distinction between formal theories and informal theories. Distributed by ISBS. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR.

This book brings together a series of papers presented at the 1953 meeting in Boston of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and published in various issues of The Scientific Monthly. The papers deal with the criteria for scientific theories, operationalism, psychoanalysis, organism and machine, and science as a social and historical phenomenon. The contributors are particularly well-chosen. -- D. R.

If self-determination shall apply as a norm also to scientific research and presentation, there are beside empirical limitations regarding data production, also conceptual limitations to data processing, because nobody can rely on knowledge by firsthand authority only. A transfer-condition (knowledge by n-th hand authority should " in principle" be available by first-hand authority) in order to save scientific rationality is shown to be equivalent with following "open" discourses, i.e. argumentations which combine competition and cooperation through developing the means to overcome (...) their imperfections due to the empirical differences of the arguing persons. (shrink)

The positivistic Received View construed scientific theories syntactically as axiomatic calculi where theoretical terms were given a partial semantic interpretation via correspondence rules connecting them to observation statements. This paper assesses what, with hindsight, seem the most important defects in the Received View; surveys the main proposed successor analyses to the Received View—various Semantic Conception versions and the Structuralist Analysis; evaluates how well they avoid those defects; examines what new problems they face and where the most promising require further development (...) or leave unanswered questions; explores implications of recent work on models for understanding theories; and rebuts the few criticisms of the Semantic Conception that have surfaced. (shrink)