Abstract
Up to now our approach to the concept of an empirical theory has been “from the inside”: We have developed ever more adequate (and more complex) pictures of the way theories look like by concentrating on the theoretical apparatus and on the intended applications of one particular, isolated theory. We thus got a succession of ever more complex notions: theory-element, specialization-net, theory-evolution; but all these notions were “closed” in the sense that they dealt with only one theory in isolation, as if there were no other theories around. In reality, of course, science does not consist of isolated “theories” but of a complex web of theoretical structures and different applications. It is this real complexity that causes the difficulties in explicating the (seemingly) simple notion of an empirical theory. Should we take an empirical theory to be just a theory-element? Or do specialization nets grasp their structure more adequately; or theory-evolutions? Or should we go even further, and take into account all the “relevant” relations which such a “theory” has with others and which would be essential to its own identity?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
Adams, Ernest W., ‘Axiomatic Foundations of Rigid Body Mechanics’, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1955.
Adams, Ernest W., ‘The Foundations of Rigid Body Mechanics and the Derivation of its Laws from Those of Particle Mechanics’, in: The Axiomatic Method (ed. by Henkin, Suppes, Tarski), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1959.
Balzer, W., Empirische Geometrie und Raum-Zeit-Theorie in mengentheoretischer Darstellung, Scriptor, Kronberg i.Ts. 1978.
Balzer, W., ‘Incommensurability and Reduction’, in I. Niiniluoto and R. Tuomela (eds.), The Logic and Epistemology of Scientific Change, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979.
Balzer, W., ‘Incommensurability, Reduction, and Translation’, Erkenntnis 23 (1985).
Balzer, W. and Sneed, J. D., ‘Generalized Net Structures of Empirical Theories, I and II’, Studia Logica XXX(3), 1977, 195–212; and Studio Logica XXXVII(2), 1978.
Balzer, W., Moulines, C. U. and Sneed, J. D., ‘The Structure of Empirical Science: Local and Global’, Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, 1983, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1986.
Balzer, W., Moulines, C. U. and Sneed, J. D., ‘Was ist Inkommensurabilität?”, Kant-Studien 76 (1985).
Feferman, S., ‘Two Notes on Abstract Model Theory, I’, Fundamenta Mathematica 82 (1974).
Feyerabend, P. K., ‘Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism’, in: H. Feigl and G. Maxwell (eds.), Scientific Explanation, Space and Time, Univ. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1962.
Feyerabend, P. K., ‘Changing Patterns of Reconstruction’, British Journal for Philosophy of Science 28, 1977.
Gaifman, H., ‘Operations on Relational Structures, Functors and Classes, I’, in L. Henkin (ed.), Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium. AMS Proc. Pure Mathematics 25 (1974).
Giedymin, J., The Paradox of Meaning Variance’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 21 (1970).
Giedymin, J., ‘Logical Comparability and Conceptual Disparity between Newtonian and Relativistic Mechanics’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24 (1973).
Gutting, G., ‘Conceptual Structures and Scientific Change’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 4 (1973).
Hiebert, E., ‘Ostwald’, Dictionary of Scientific Biography, vol. XIV (1978).
Hoering, W., ‘Anomalies of Reduction’, in W. Balzer, D. Pearce, H.-J. Schmidt (eds.), Reduction in Science, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984.
Jamison, B. N., ‘An Axiomatic Treatment of Lagrange’s Equations’, Unpublished M.S. thesis, Stanford University, 1956.
Krüger, L., ‘Intertheoretic Relations as a Tool for the Rational Reconstruction of Scientific Development’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 11 (1980).
Krüger, L., ‘Reduction Versus Elimination of Theories’, Erkenntnis 10(1976).
Kuhn, T. S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962 (2nd ed. 1970).
Kuhn, T. S., ‘Theory-Change as Structure-Change: Comments on the Sneed Formalism’, Erkenntnis 10, 1976.
Kuhn, T. S., ‘Commensurability, Comparability, Communicability’, in P. Asquith and T. Nickles (eds.), PSA 1982, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, 1983.
Mayr, D., ‘Investigations of the Concept of Reduction I and IF, Erkenntnis 10 (1976) and 16 (1981).
Moulines, C. U., ‘Äquivalenz der Lagrangeschen Mechanik mit der klassischen Partikelmechanik’, unpublished manuscript, Munich, 1974.
Moulines, C. U., ‘Ontological Reduction in the Natural Sciences’, in W. Balzer, D. Pearce and H.-J. Schmidt (eds.), Reduction in Science, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984.
Nagel, E., ‘The Meaning of Reduction in the Natural Sciences’, in R. C. Stauffer (ed.), Science and Civilization, Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1949.
Nagel, E., ‘Issues in the Logic of Reductive Explanations’, in H. Kiefer and M. Munits (eds.), Mind, Science, and History, SUNY Press, Albany, 1970.
Pearce, D., ‘Logical Properties of the Structuralist Concept of Reduction’, Erkenntnis 18, 1982.
Pearce, D. and Rantala, V., ‘Correspondence as an Intertheory Relation’, Studia Logica 42 (1983).
Przelecki, M., ‘Commensurable Referents of Incommensurable Terms’, in Niiniluoto, I. and Tuomela, R. (eds.), The Logic and Epistemology of Scientific Change. Acta Philosophica Fennica 30, Amsterdam, 1979.
Schmidt, H.-J., Axiomatic Characterization of Physical Geometry, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, 1979.
Shoenfield, J. R., Mathematical Logic, Reading, London, 1967.
Sneed, J. D., The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics, revised edition, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979.
Sneed, J. D., ‘Reduction, Interpretation and Invariance’, in W. Balzer, D. Pearce and H.-J. Schmidt (eds.), Reduction in Science, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984.
Stegmüller, W., Theorienstrukturen und Theoriendynamik, Springer, Berlin, 1973. English translation by W. Wohlhüter, The Structure and Dynamics of Theories, Springer, New York, 1976.
Stegmüller, W., The Structuralist View of Theories, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, 1979.
Stegmüller, W., Theorie und Erfahrung: Dritter Teilband: Die Entwicklung des neuen Strukturalismus seit 1973, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, 1986.
Tarski, A., ‘What is Elementary Geometry?’, in L. Henkin, P. Suppes and A. Tarski (eds.), The Axiomatic Method, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1959.
Yoshida, R. M., Reduction in the Physical Sciences, Dalhousic Univ. Press, Halifax, 1977.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1987 D. Reidel Publishing Company
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Balzer, W., Moulines, C.U., Sneed, J.D. (1987). Intertheoretical Relations. In: An Architectonic for Science. Synthese Library, vol 186. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3765-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3765-9_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-8176-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-3765-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive