We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2020
This paper explores the conceptual dimension in theory acceptance, throws light on the notion of coherence between theories, and emphasizes the role of coherence between theories in theory acceptance. It is important, however, to recognize that the empirical-conceptual distinction, like most other distinctions in philosophy, is only pragmatic because purely empirical or conceptual notions in science are rare. That is, the term ‘conceptual’ is actually used in the sense of ‘mostly conceptual’, and the term ‘empirical’ signifies what is predominantly empirical. Yet it is useful in many contexts to speak of conceptual and empirical merits of theories separately. Among the commonly discussed conceptual merits of a theory are internal consistency, simplicity, comprehensiveness, and coherence with existing theories. Empirical merits include accommodating known evidence and passing experimental tests. The focus of this paper is coherence between theories.
1 Ling, G. In Search of the Physical Basis of Life. (New York: Plenum Press, 1984), 507–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Wolfe, S. An Introduction to Cellular and Molecular Biology. (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing, 1995), 659–660.Google Scholar
3 Gale, G. Theory of Science: An Introduction to the History, Logic, and Philosophy of Science. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979), 220–226.Google Scholar
4 Kosso, P. Reading the Book of Nature: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Kosso, Reading the Book of Nature, 148.Google Scholar
6 See, e.g., Bonjour, L. The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985), 91.Google Scholar
7 Eliasmith, C. and Thagard, P. ‘Waves, Particles, and Explanatory Coherence,’ The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 48 (1997): 7–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Shogenji, T. ‘Is Coherence Truth Conducive?’ Analysis 59 (1999): 338–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Fitelson, B. ‘A probabilistic Theory of Coherence,’ Analysis 63 (2003): 195–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Jammer, M. The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 80–81.Google Scholar
11 Krajewsky, W. Correspondence Principle and Growth of Science (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1977), 6–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 See, e.g., Taylor, J. Hidden Unity in Nature's Laws. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Mehra, J. and Rechenberg, H. The Historical Development of Quantum Theory (2 volumes), (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982), 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Segre, E. From X-Rays to Quarks: Modern Physicists and their Discoveries. (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1980), 76.Google Scholar
15 Hendry, J. The Creation of Quantum Mechanics and the Bohr-Pauli Dialogue (Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1984), 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Amaldi, G. The Nature of Matter: Physical Theory from Thales to Fermi. Translated by Astbury, P. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 61.Google Scholar
17 Rutherford, E. ‘The Scattering of alpha and beta Particles by Matter and the Structure of the Atom’, in Boorse, Motz, H. And L. (eds.), The World of the Atom (New York, London: Basic Books, 1966), 701–731.Google Scholar
18 Amaldi, The Nature of Matter, 60-64.
19 See M. Jammer, (1966), 43-53, and Heisenberg, W. Encounters with Einstein and Other Essays on People, Places, and Particles. (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1983), 21.Google Scholar
20 See, e.g., his letter of 1907, quoted in Hermann, A. The Genesis of Quantum Theory (1899-1913). Translated by Nash, C. (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1970), 56.Google Scholar
21 Hund, F. The History of Quantum Theory. Translated by Reece, G. (London: Harrap, 1974), 50.Google Scholar
22 Hendry, The Creation of Quantum Mechanics, 36-37.
23 Jammer, The Conceptual Development, 36.Google Scholar
24 For an analysis of this episode see Brown, L. Pais, A. and Pippard, B. Twentieth Century Physics, Volume I. (London and New York: Institute of Physics Publishing & American Institute of Physics Press, 1995), 163–166.Google Scholar
25 Brown, Pais, and Pippard, Twentieth Century Physics, 165-166.
