Frames and concepts in the philosophy of science
In the philosophy of science, the frame model is used in order to represent and analyze scientific concepts and conceptual change. However, the potential of the frame model is far from being fully exploited: Up to now, the frame model is only applied to a rather small set of different kinds of concepts and important advantages of the frame model for reconstructing and analyzing concepts have been neglected. In this article, we will essentially extend the frame model in the following way: We will develop a frame-based approach for representing a comprehensive class of different kinds of concepts including conjunctively and disjunctively defined concepts, family resemblance concepts, prototype concepts, operationalized concepts, dual concepts integrating two different ways of concept determination, and theoretical concepts. In order to do so, we will define different kinds of frames with respect to the logical structure of the kind of concept that is represented by a particular frame. We will exemplify our approach by means of ten frames applied to standard cases of conceptual analyses in philosophy and cognitive science as well as to scientific concepts of political science, psychology, linguistics and physics.
KeywordsFrame model Concept representation Defined concepts Prototype concepts Family resemblance concepts Operationalized concepts Dual concepts Theoretical concepts
For valuable comments I am indebted to two anonymous referees.
- Barker, P., Chen, X., & Andersen, H. (2003). Kuhn on concepts and categorization. In T. Nickles (Ed.), Thomas Kuhn (pp. 212–245). Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
- Barsalou, L. W. (1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts (pp. 21–74). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Barsalou, L. W., & Hale, C. R. (1993). Components of conceptual representation: from feature lists to recursive frames. In I. Van Mechelen, J. Hampton, R. S. Michalski, & P. Theuns (Eds.), Categories and concepts: theoretical views ans inductive data analysis (pp. 97–144). London: Academic.Google Scholar
- Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt & Co..Google Scholar
- Borsley, R. D. (1991). Syntactic theory: a unified approach. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
- Burton-Roberts, N. (1997). Analysing sentences: an introduction to English syntax (2. ed.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
- Carnap, R. (1963). Carl G. Hempel on scientific theories. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The philosophy of Rudolf Carnap (pp. 958–966). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- German Federal Statistical Office. (2015). Persons with a migration background. https://www.Destatis.De/EN/FactsFigures/SocietyState/population/MigrationIntegration/PersonsMigrationBackground/MigrationBackgroundMethods.Html (24 May 2016).
- Haegeman, L. (2006). Thinking syntactically: a guide to argumentation and analysis. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Haegeman, L., & Guéron, J. (1999). English grammar: a generative perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Halliday, D., Resnick, R., & Walker, J. (2008). Fundamentals of physics (8. ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T. S. (1993/2010). Afterwords. In P. Horwich (Ed.), World changes (pp. 311–341). University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
- Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (1999). Concepts and cognitive science. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts (pp. 3–81). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Poole, G. (2002). Syntactic theory. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
- Santorini, B., & Kroch, A. (2007). The syntax of natural language: An online introduction using the Trees program. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ (May 24, 2016).
- Schurz, G. (2013). Philosophy of science: a unified approach. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Wittgenstein, L. (1953/1984). Philosophische Untersuchungen. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a. M.Google Scholar