Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-rv6c5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-24T17:17:55.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Structure of Scientific Theory Change: Models versus Privileged Formulations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

James Mattingly
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two views of scientific theories dominated the philosophy of science during the twentieth century, the syntactic view of the logical empiricists and the semantic view of their successors. I show that neither view is adequate to provide a proper understanding of the connections that exist between theories at different times. I outline a new approach, a hybrid of the two, that provides the right structural connection between earlier and later theories, and that takes due account of the importance of the mathematical models of a theory (the semantic component) and of the various distinct formulations that pick out these models (the syntactic component).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 72 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 365 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

‡

This paper has benefited a great deal from many prolonged conversations, but I am especially grateful to Noretta Koertge, Eric Winsberg, and Walter Warwick. Thanks go, as well, to several referees for Philosophy of Science, and to Michael Dickson for many helpful comments on earlier drafts.

References

Ashtekar, Abhay (1991), Lectures on Nonperturbative Canonical Gravity. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashtekar, Abhay, and Lewandowski, Jerzy (1996), “Quantum Theory of Geometry I”, Quantum Theory of Geometry I 14:A55–A82.Google Scholar
Bonola, Roberto (1955), Non-Euclidean Geometry. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Halvorson, Hans (2001), “Reeh-Schlieder Defeats Newton-Wigner: On Alternative Localization Schemes in Relativistic Quantum Field Theory”, Reeh-Schlieder Defeats Newton-Wigner: On Alternative Localization Schemes in Relativistic Quantum Field Theory 68:111–133.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick (1977), The Structure of Scientific Theories. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick (1979), “Theory Structure”, in Asquith, Peter D. and Kyburg, Henry E. Jr., (eds.), Current Research in Philosophy of Science. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 317–338.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick (1989), The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Suppes, Patrick (1969), Studies in the Methodology and Foundations of Science. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, Patrick (1993), Models and Methods in the Philosophy of Science: Selected Essays. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1987), “The Semantic Approach to Scientific Theories”, in Nersessian, Nancy J. (ed.), Science and Philosophy. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1989), Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wald, Robert (1994), Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Weinberg, Steven. (1995), The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar