Advertisement

Existential Quantifiers and Guiding Principles in Physical Theories

  • C. Ulises Moulines
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 172)

Abstract

In the 1969 Postscript to the second edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Thomas Kuhn set out to reply to several objections that had been made against the first edition of the book (1962). Among those objections there was one that Kuhn took most seriously. It was the claim that his famous notion of a “paradign,” as a structure underlying the whole of a discipline during a period of normal science was irremediably vague and ambiguous. Kuhn tried to make the notion more precise, and for this reason he even changed the terminology: The “paradigm”of the first edition became the “disciplinary matrix” of the Postscript. It seems that the new term has had no good fortune; people continue to talk about “paradigns” and, even worse, they continue to talk about them with the same vagueness which characterized Kuhn’s discussion in the first edition of his work. Of course, the issue at stake is not merely terminological, and therefore we can go on using the term “paradigm” instead of “disciplinary matrix” in the present context. What really matters is that Kuhn tried to make the structure of his basic notion more precise and for this reason he identified four components that, in his view, are essential to a paradigm: symbolic generalizations, ontological and heuristic models, methodological values, and “paradigmatic” exemplars of applications. Shortly afterwards, in Structures and Dynamics of Theories, Stegmuller used the formal apparatus of Sneed’s Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics to formalize the notions involved in the first and last components identified by Kuhn in a paradigm. According to Stegnuller, Kuhn’s “symbolic generalizations” are nothing but the fundamental laws of a theory’s so called “structure core.”

Keywords

Classical Mechanic Empirical Content Existential Quantifier Guide Principle Logical Reconstruction 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Callen, H. B., Thermodynamics. New York, 1960.Google Scholar
  2. D’Alembert, J. R., Traite de Dvnamiaue, Paris, 1743.Google Scholar
  3. Davis, M., Computabilitv and Unsolvability. New York, 1958.Google Scholar
  4. Garcia, C. L., Review of J. C. C. McKinsey, A. C. Sugar, P. Suppes, Axiomatic Foundations of Classical Particle Mechanics, Critica, 28 (1978).Google Scholar
  5. Goodman, N., The Structure of Appearance. Cambridge, Mass., 1951.Google Scholar
  6. Hamel, G., “Die Axiome der Mechanik.” In Handbuch der Physik, vol. 5. Berlin, 1925.Google Scholar
  7. Hermes, H., “Zur Axiomatisierung der Mechanik.” In L. Henkin, P. Suppes, A. Tarski (eds.), The Axiomatic Method. Amsterdam, 1959.Google Scholar
  8. Hertz, H., Die Prinzipien der Mechanik. Leipzig, 1894.Google Scholar
  9. Kirchhoff, G., Vorlesungen über Mechanik. Leipzig, 1876.Google Scholar
  10. Kuhn, T. S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd edition). Chicago, 1970.Google Scholar
  11. Mach, E., Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung. Prague, 1883.Google Scholar
  12. McKinsey, J. C. C., A. C. Sugar and P. Suppes, “Axiomatic Foundations of Classical Particle Mechanics,” Journal of Rational Mechanics 2/2 (1953).Google Scholar
  13. Mittelstaedt, P., Klassische Mechanik. Mannheim, 1970.Google Scholar
  14. Moulines, C. U., “A Logical Reconstruction of Simple Equilibrium Thermodynamics,” Erkenntnis 9/1 (1975).Google Scholar
  15. Moulines, C. U., Exploraciones metacientíficas. Madrid, 1982.Google Scholar
  16. Nagel, E., The Structure of Science. New York, 1961.Google Scholar
  17. Simon, H. t, H. t “The Axioms of Newtonian Mechanics,” Philosophical Magazine 38 (1947).Google Scholar
  18. Simon, H., “The Axiomatization of Classical Mechanics,” Philosophy of Science 21 (1954).Google Scholar
  19. Sneed, J. D., The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Dordrecht, 1971.Google Scholar
  20. Stegnüller, W., Theorien struktur en und Theoriendvnamik. Berlin-Heidelberg, 1973.Google Scholar
  21. Stegnüller, W., “Accidental (‘Non-substantial’) Theory Change and Theory Dislodgement.” Erkenntnis 10/11 (1976).Google Scholar
  22. Suppes, P., Introduction to Logic. New York, 1957.Google Scholar
  23. Tisza, L., Generalized Thermodynamics. Cambridge, Mass., 1966.Google Scholar
  24. Truesdel, G., “Rückwirkungen der Geschichte der Mechanik auf die moderne Forschung”. Humanismus und Technik 13, (1969).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Ulises Moulines

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations