Efforts to bare the psychonomic nature of the semantic reference (representation) relation have been remarkably scanty; in fact, the only contemporary account developed with any care is the one proposed by Osgood. However, not even Osgood has looked deeply at the difficulties that beset any attempt to analyze reference in terms of common effects appropriately shared by a symbol and its significate.

It is widely agreed among philosophers of science today that no formal pattern can possibly be found in the origins of scientific theory. There is no such thing as a "logic of discovery," insists this view--a scientific hypothesis is susceptible to methodological critique only in its relation to empirical consequences derived after the hypothesis itself has emerged through a spontaneous creative inspiration. Yet confronted with the tautly directed thrust of theory-building as actually practiced at the cutting edge of scientific research, (...) this romantic denial of method in the genesis of ideas takes on the appearance of myth. It is the contention of this article that as empirical data ramify in logical complexity, they deposit a hard sediment of theory according to a standard inductive pattern so primitively compelling that it must be recognized as one of the primary forms of inferential thought. This process, here called "ontological induction," is a distillation out of unwieldly observed regularities of more conceptually tractable states hypothesized to underlie them, and is the wellspring of our beliefs in theoretical entities. Previous failure to recognize this pattern of induction has undoubtedly been in substantial measure a result of inadequate attention to the structural details of scientific propositions; for in order to exhibit the nature of ontological induction clearly, it is first necessary to make extended forays through sparsely explored methodological terrain--notably, the nature of scientific "variables," the logical form of "laws," and the type-hierarchy of scientific concepts. (shrink)

Subjunctive conditionals have their uses, but constituting the meaning of dispositional predicates is not one of them. More germane is the analysis of dispositions in terms of "bases"--except that past efforts to maintain an ontic gap between dispositions and their bases, while not wholly misguided, have failed to appreciate the semantic birthright of dispositional concepts as a species of theoretical construct in primitive science.

Part I is concerned with the tenet of modern Emperical Realism that while the theoretical concepts employed in science obtain their meanings entirely from the connections their usage establishes with the data language, the referents of such terms may be "unobservables," that is, entities which cannot be discussed within the data language alone. Such a view avoids both the restrictive excesses of logical positivism and the epistemic laxity of transcendentalism; however, it also necessitates a break with classical semantics, for it (...) follows from the empirical realistic position that a theoretical term must in principle be capable of simultaneously designating not just one entity, but indefinitely many. Drawing upon the Carnapian explication of "analytic truth," Part II examines a possible axiomatic basis for the empiricist theory of scientific meaningfulness to demonstrate that even if theoretical terms are able to designate entities inaccessible to the observation language, as held by Empirical Realism, so long as the meanings of theoretical terms derive from their connections with the observation language, the meaning content of a theory is exhausted by its observational consequences. (shrink)

It has become customary in modern behavioristics to speak of stimuli as though they elicit responses from organisms. But logically this is absurd, for analysis of the grammatical roles of stimulus and response concepts shows that stimuli and responses differ in logical type from causes and effects. The "S elicits R" formula thus stands revealed as elliptical for a more complicated form of assertion. The trouble with this ellipsis, however, is that by suppressing vital components of formal structure in behavioral (...) principles, it has led to gratuitous assumptions about the environmental antecedents of behavior and seriously undermined the ability of behavior theory to assimilate the "higher mental processes.". (shrink)

When Hempel's "paradox of confirmation" is developed within the confines of conditional probability theory, it becomes apparent that two seemingly equivalent generalities ("laws") can have exactly the same class of observational refuters even when their respective classes of confirming observations are importantly distinct. Generalities which have the inductive supports we commonsensically construe them to have, however, must incorporate quasi-logical operators or connectives which cannot be defined truth-functionally. The origins and applications of these "modalic" concepts appear to be intimately linked with (...) a number of basic conundrums in the philosophy of science, such as causation and the nature of explanation. (shrink)

In a recent note, Horwich challenges the foundations of Hempel's classic paradox of confirmation by a clever example purporting to show that under Nicod's Criterion, data can be made to confirm a hypothesis with which they are logically incompatible. Specifically, Horwich observes that 'Pb' is formally equivalent to ''. The latter has form '' with '∼P___ · ∼Pb' for 'Ψ' and '___ ≠ b' for 'ϕ', while the observation that distinct objects a and b both lack P, i.e. that —Pa (...) · ∼Pb · a ≠ b, can be expressed as 'Ψa · ϕa' for these same instantiations of the predicate markers. Accordingly, if an uncertain generality '' were always to be confirmed by an observation of form 'Ψa · ϕa', as Nicod's Criterion has long been presumed to say, then we could confirm that b has P by observing that b and some other object both lack P—a flagrant absurdity. (shrink)

As anyone who has ever seriously attempted to analyze the semantico-epistemological status of scientific theories has soon discovered, it is not easy to reconcile the belief that theoretical terms have genuine cognitive properties with the empiricist tenet that all knowledge derives from experience. Even if it be granted that knowledge can originate in experience without being about experience, it still remains to develop a coherent metalinguistic account of the truth-conditions of theoretical propositions and the designata of denotative expressions in the (...) theory language. In a recent article, “On the use of Hilbert's e-operator in scientific theories” [1], Carnap has broadened his analysis of theories to include provision for the referential properties of individual theoretical terms. But while his account focuses more closely than ever upon the fundamental semantical problems of a theory language, his specific proposals amount to a repudiation of the very logical empiricism which he has so strongly championed these many years. In what follows, I use Carnap's notation and terminology throughout. (shrink)

Scientific theories often need to envision that a given output variable Y is jointly determined by all input variables of a certain kind ΣX that we can identify onlyas a kind without knowing all its specific instances or even how many of these there are, When the number of variables in ΣX is possibly infinite, the function by which they determine Y proves to be enormously enigmatic, epistemically, mathematically, and scientifically.