Critical Notice of Paul Thomson's The Structure of Biological Theories

Canadian Journal of Philosophy 22 (2):287-298 (1992)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this critical notice, I argue that the semantic view championed by Thompson no logical advantage over the syntactic view of theories, especially in the area of interpretation. Each weakness of the syntactic view has a corresponding weakness in the semantic view. In principle the two are not different in power, but it is sometimes better to adopt one rather than the other, for practical reasons. I agree with Thompson that many issues in the philosophy of biology can be illuminated by the semantic view, but that other things, especially deriving specific prediction, are best understood with the syntactic view

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,423

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-02

Downloads
16 (#886,588)

6 months
3 (#1,002,413)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

John Collier
University of KwaZulu-Natal

Citations of this work

Inference to the Best explanation.Peter Lipton - 2004 - In Martin Curd & Stathis Psillos (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. Routledge. pp. 193.
Reinflating the semantic approach.Steven French & James Ladyman - 1999 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 13 (2):103 – 121.

Add more citations