Advertisement

Idealizations, Intertheory Explanations and Conditionals

  • Hans RottEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science book series (LEUS, volume 21)

Abstract

Drawing inspiration from Lakatos’s philosophy of science, the paper presents a notion of intertheory explanation that is suitable to explain, from the point of view of a successor theory, its predecessor theory’s success (where it is successful) as well as the latter’s failure (where it fails) at the same time. A variation of the Ramsey-test is used, together with a standard AGM belief revision model, to give a semantics for open and counterfactual conditionals and ’because’-sentences featuring in such intertheory explanations. Pre-theoretically described idealizing assumptions play a crucial role in this model, especially when the predecessor theory and the successor theory contradict each other.

Keywords

Belief Revision Belief Change Successor Theory Applicability Condition Nonmonotonic Logic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alchourrón, Carlos E., Peter Gärdenfors, and David Makinson. 1985. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50:510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradley, Richard. 2007. A defence of the Ramsey test. Mind 116:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chakravartty, Anjan. 2010. Truth and representation in science: Two inspirations from art. In Beyond mimesis and convention: Representation in art and science, eds. Roman Frigg and Matthew Hunter, 33–50. Dordrecht: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  4. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1975. Imre Iakatos. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 26:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frigg, Roman, and Stephan Hartmann. 2006. Models in science. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science
  6. Gärdenfors, Peter. 1978. Conditionals and changes of belief. In The logic and epistemology of scientific change, eds. I. Niiniluoto and R. Tuomela, 381–404. Acta Philosophica Fennica (1979) 20, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  7. Gärdenfors, Peter. 1986. Belief revision and the Ramsey test for conditionals. Philosophical Review 95:81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gärdenfors, Peter. 1987. Variations on the Ramsey test: More triviality results. Studia Logica 46:319–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gärdenfors, Peter. 1988. Knowledge in Flux. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  10. Giordano, Laura, Valentina Gliozzi, and Nicola Olivetti. 2005. Weak AGM postulates and strong Ramsey test: A logical formalization. Artificial Intelligence 168:1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glymour Clark. 1970. On some patterns of reduction. Philosophy of Science 33:340–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodman, Nelson. 1954. The problem of counterfactual conditionals. In Fact, fiction, and forecast, ed. Nelson Goodman, 13–34. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
  13. Krüger, Lorenz. 1980. Intertheoretic relations as a tool for the rational reconstruction of scientific development. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 11:89–101. (Reprinted in Lorenz Krüger, 2005. Why does history matter to philosophy and the sciences? Selected essays, eds. Thomas Sturm, Wolfgang Carl, and Lorraine Daston, 79–92. Berlin: de Gruyter.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lakatos, Imre. 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Criticism and the growth of knowledge, eds. Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, 91–196. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lakatos, Imre. 1971. History of science and its rational reconstructions. In PSA 1970 – In memory of Rudolf Carnap, eds. Roger S. Buck and Robert S. Cohen, 91–136. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  16. Laymon, Ronald. 1980. Idealization, explanation, and confirmation. In Philosophy of science association, eds. P.D. Asquith and R.N. Giere, vol. 1, 336–350. East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
  17. Laymon, Ronald. 1982. Scientific realism and the hierarchical counterfactual path from data to theory. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1:107–121.Google Scholar
  18. Lindström Sten and Wlodek Rabinowicz. 1998. Conditionals and the Ramsey test. In Handbook of defeasible reasoning and uncertainty management systems, eds. Dov Gabbay and Philippe Smets, vol. 3 (Belief Change), 147–188. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. McCall, Storrs. 1983. If, since and because: A study in conditional connection. Logique et Analyse 26:309–321.Google Scholar
  20. McCall, Storrs. 1984. Counterfactuals based on real possible worlds. Noûs 18:463–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miller, David. 1974. Popper’s qualitative theory of verisimilitude. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25:166–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nowak, L. 1980. The structure of idealization. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  23. Nute, Donald and Charles, Cross. 2001. Conditional logic. In Handbook of philosophical logic, eds. Dov Gabbay and Franz Guenthner, 2nd edn., vol. 4, 1–98. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  24. Popper, Karl R. 2002. The logic of scientific discovery: Logik der Forschung. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Psillos, Stathis. 2007. Philosophy of science A–Z. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ramsey, Frank P. 1931. General propositions and causality. In F.P. Ramsey, The foundations of mathematics and other logical essays, ed. J.B. Braithwaite, 237–255. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  27. Rott, Hans. 1986. Ifs, though, and because. Erkenntnis 25:345–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rott, Hans. 1989. Approximation versus idealization: The Kepler-Newton-case. In Idealization II: Forma and applications, eds. J. Brzezinski, F. Coniglione, T.A.F. Kuipers, and L. Nowak, 101–124. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Science and the Humanities 17, Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  29. Rott, Hans. 1991. Reduktion und revision – Aspekte des nichtmonotonen Theorienwandels. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang.Google Scholar
  30. Rott, Hans. 2000. Two dogmas of belief revision. Journal of Philosophy 97:503–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rott, Hans. 2001. Change, choice and inference. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  32. Rott, Hans. 2009. Shifting priorities: Simple representations for twenty-seven iterated theory change operators. In Towards mathematical philosophy (Trends in logic, vol. IV), eds. David Makinson, Jacek Malinowski, and Heinrich Wansing, 269–296. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Sklar, Lawrence. 1967. Types of inter-theoretic reduction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 18:109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Spohn, Wolfgang. 1983. Deterministic and probabilistic reasons and causes. Erkenntnis 19:371–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Spohn, Wolfgang. 1988. Ordinal conditional functions. A dynamic theory of epistemic states. In Causation in decision, belief change, and statistics, eds. William L. Harper and Brian Skyrms, vol. 2, 105–134. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  36. Stalnaker, Robert. 1968. A theory of conditionals. In Studies in logical theory, ed. Nicholas Rescher, 98–112. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Stegmüller, Wolfgang. 1979. The structuralist view of theories: A possible analogue of the Bourbaki programme in physical science. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Tichý, Pavel. 1974. On Popper’s definition of verisimilitude. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25:155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations