The Growth of Theories: Comments on the Structuralist Approach

  • Ilkka Niiniluoto
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 145)


The nature and function of scientific theories is perhaps the most central problem within the philosophy of science. To study the basic features of theories and their role in scientific inquiry, a philosopher should be able to construe them as entities which he can handle and investigate. It is therefore no wonder that questions concerning the most appropriate ways of reconstructing scientific theories have a crucial importance in discussions about the proper method which philosophers of science should follow.


Scientific Theory Structuralist Approach Scientific Progress Intended Application Scientific Revolution 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Achinstein, P.: 1968, Concepts of Science, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  2. Balzer, W.: 1978, ‘Incommensurability and Reduction’, in Niiniluoto and Tuomela ( 1978 ), pp. 313–335.Google Scholar
  3. Balzer, W. and Sneed, J.: 1977, ‘Generalized Net Structures of Empirical Theories, I’, Studia Logica 36, 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beth, E., ‘Semantics of Physical Theories’, in H. Freudenthal (ed.), The Concept and the Role of the Model in Mathematics and Natural and Social Sciences, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1961, pp. 48–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogdan, R.J. (ed.): 1976, Local Induction, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  6. Butts, R.E. and Hintikka, J. (eds.): 1977, Historical and Philosophical Dimensions of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  7. Carnap, R.: 1971, ‘A Basic System of Inductive Logic’, in R. Carnap and R.C. Jeffrey (eds.), Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, Vol. 1, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 35–165.Google Scholar
  8. Church, A.: 1956, Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  9. Duhem, P.: 1954, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  10. Feyerabend, P.: 1977, Review of Stegmüller (1973), The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 28, 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frege, G., Begriffschrift (1879). English transl. in J. van Heijenoort (ed.): 1967. From Frege to Gödel: A Sourcebook in Mathematical Logic 1879–1931, Harvard University Press, Harvard.Google Scholar
  12. Giedymin, J.: 1971, ‘The Paradox of Meaning Variance’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 22 30–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Girill, T.R.: 1973, ‘The Logic of Scientific Puzzles’, Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 4, 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harris J.H.: 1978. ‘A Semantical Alternative to the Sneed-Stegmüller-Kuhn Conception of Scientific Theories’, in Niiniluoto and Tuomela ( 1978 ), pp. 184–204.Google Scholar
  15. Hempel, C.G.: 1965, Aspects of Scientific Explanation, The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Hempel, C.G.: 1970, ‘On the “Standard Conception” of Scientific Theories’, in M. Radner and S. Winokur (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. IV. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 142–163.Google Scholar
  17. Hesse, M.: 1974, The Structure of Scientific Inference, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  18. Hintikka, J. and Tuomela, R.: 1970, ‘Towards a General Theory of Auxiliary Concepts and Definability in First-Order Theories’, in J. Hintikka and P. Suppes (eds.), Information and Inference, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 298–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kamlah, A.: 1976, ‘An Improved Definition of “Theoretical in a Given Theory”’, Erkenntnis 10, 349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kleiner, S.: 1970, ‘Erotetic Logic and the Structure of Scientific Revolution’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 21, pp. 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krajewski, W.: 1977, Correspondence Principle and the Growth of Knowledge, Reidel, Dordrecht and Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuhn, T.S.: 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2nd ed. 1970.Google Scholar
  23. Kuhn, T.S.: 1974, ‘Second Thoughts on Paradigms’, in Suppe ( 1974 ), pp. 459–482.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhn, T.S.: 1976, ‘Theory-Change as Structure Change: Comments on the Sneed Formalism’, Erkenntnis 10, 179–199. (Also in Butts and Hintikka, 1977, pp. 289–309.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lakatos, I.: 1970, ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’, in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 91–195.Google Scholar
  26. Laudan, L.: 1977, Progress and Its Problems, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  27. Lehrer, K.: 1977, ‘Social Information’, Monist 60.Google Scholar
  28. Levi, I.: 1976, ‘Acceptance Revisited’, in Bogdan pp. 1–71.Google Scholar
  29. Mayr, D.: 1976, ‘Investigations of the Concept of Reduction, I’, Erkenntnis 10, 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Montague, R.: 1961, ‘Deterministic Theories’, in R. Washburne (ed.), Decisions, Values, and Groups, II, Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 325–370.Google Scholar
  31. Moulines, C.-U.: 1975, Review of Sneed (1971), Erkenntnis 9, 423–436. [1975a.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moulines, C.-U.: 1975, ‘A Logical Reconstruction of Simple Equilibrium Thermodynamics’, Erkenntnis 9, 101–130. [1975b.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moulines, C.-U.: 1976, ‘Approximate Application of Empirical Theories: A General Explication’, Erkenntnis 10, 201–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moulines, C.-U.: 1979, ‘Theory-Nets and the Dynamics of Theories: The Example of Newtonian Mechanics’, Synthese 41, 417–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Niiniluoto, I.: 1976, ‘Inquiries, Problems, and Questions: Remarks on Local Induction’, in Bogdan, pp. 263–296.Google Scholar
  36. Niiniluoto, I.: 1977, ‘On the Truthlikeness of Generalizations’, in R.E. Butts and J. Hintikka (eds.), Basic Problems of Methodology and Linguistics, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 121–147.Google Scholar
  37. Niiniluoto, I.: 1978a, ‘Notes on Popper as Follower of Whewell and Peirce’, Ajatus 37, 272–327.Google Scholar
  38. Ninniluoto, I.: 1978b, ‘Truthlikeness: Comments on Recent Discussion’, Synthese 38, pp. 281–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Niiniluoto, I.: 1978c, ‘Verisimilitude, Theory-Change, and Scientific Progress’, in Niiniluoto and Tuomela ( 1978 ), pp. 243–264.Google Scholar
  40. Niiniluoto, I. and Tuomela, R.: 1973, Theoretical Concepts and Hypothetico-Inductive Inference, Reidel, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Niiniluoto, I. and Tuomela, R. (eds.): 1978, The Logic and Epistemology of Scientific Change (Acta Philosophical Fennica 30), North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  42. Nowak, L.: 1975, ‘Relative Truth, the Correspondence Principle and Absolute Truth’, Philosophy of Science 42, 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Poincaré, H.: 1952, Science and Hypothesis, Dover, New York.Google Scholar
  44. Popper, K.R.: 1963, Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  45. Przetecki, M.: 1969, The Logic of Empirical Theories, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  46. Przetecki, M.: 1974, ‘A Set-Theoretic versus a Model Theoretic Approach to the Logical Structure of Physical Theories’, Studia Logica 33, pp. 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Przetecki, M.: 1978, ‘Commensurable Referents of Incommensurable Terms’, in Niiniluoto and Tuomela ( 1978 ), pp. 347–365.Google Scholar
  48. Przetecki, M. and Wojcicki, R. (eds.): 1977, Twenty-Five Years of Logical Methodology in Poland, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  49. Rantala, V.: 1977, Aspects of Definability (Acta Philosophica Fennica 29 ), North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  50. Rantala, V.: 1978a, ‘The Old and New Logic of Metascience’, Synthese 39, 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rantala, V.: 1978b, “Correspondence and Non-Standard Models: A Case Study”, in Niiniluoto and Tuomela ( 1978 ), pp. 366–378.Google Scholar
  52. Scheibe, E.: 1973, The Logical Analysis of Quantum Mechanics, Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  53. Scheibe, E.: 1976, ‘Conditions of Progress and the Comparability of Theories’, in R.S. Cohen et al. (eds.), Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  54. Scheibe, E.: 1978, ‘On the Structure of Physical Theories’, in Niiniluoto and Tuomela ( 1978 ), pp. 205–224.Google Scholar
  55. Sellars, W.: 1963, Science, Perception and Reality, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  56. Shapere, D.: 1974, ‘Scientific Theories and Their Domains’, in Suppe ( 1974 ), pp. 518–570.Google Scholar
  57. Simon, H.A.: 1977, Models of Discovery, Reidel, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sneed, J.: 1971, The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics, Reidel, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sneed, J., 1976, ‘Philosophical Problems in the Empirical Science of Science: A Formal Approach’, Erkenntnis 10, pp. 115–146. (Also in Butts and Hintikka, 1977, pp. 245–268.)Google Scholar
  60. Sneed, J.: 1978, ‘Invariance Principles and Theoretization’, in Niiniluoto and Tuomela ( 1978 ), pp. 130–178.Google Scholar
  61. Stegmüller, W.: 1970, Theorie und Erfahrung, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York.Google Scholar
  62. Stegmüller, W.: 1973, Theorienstrukturen und Theoriendynamik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York.Google Scholar
  63. Stegmüller, W.: 1974, ‘Theorienstruktur und logisches Verständnis’, in W. Diederich (ed.), Theorien der Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 167–209. English transl. ‘Logical Understanding and the Dynamics of Theories’, in W. Stegmüller, 1977, Collected Papers, II, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 150–176.Google Scholar
  64. Stegmüller, W.: 1975, ‘Structures and Dynamics of Theories: Some Reflections on J.D. Sneed and T.S. Kuhn’, Erkenntnis 9, 75–100. Also in Collected Papers, II, pp. 177–202.Google Scholar
  65. Stegmüller, W.: 1976a, The Structure and Dynamics of Theories, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg-Berlin.Google Scholar
  66. Stegmüller, W.: 1976b, ‘Accidental (“Non-Substantial”) Theory Change and Theory Dislodgment’, Erkenntnis 10, 147–178. Also in Butts and Hintikka (1977), pp. 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stegmüller, W.: 1976, ‘Normale Wissenschaft und wissenschaftliche Revolutionen — Kritische Betrachtungen zur Kontroverse zwischen Karl Popper und Thomas Kuhn’, Wissenschaft und Weltbild 29, 169–180. [1976c.]Google Scholar
  68. Stegmüller, W.: 1978a, ‘A Combined Approach to the Dynamics of Theories’, Theory and Decision 9, 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stegmüller, W.: 1978, ‘The Structuralist View: Survey, Recent Developments and Answers to Some Criticisms’, in Niiniluoto and Tuomela (1978), pp. 113–129.Google Scholar
  70. Suppe, F.: 1972, ‘What’s Wrong with the Received View on the Structure of Scientific Theories’, Philosophy of Science 39, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Suppe, F. (ed.): 1974, The Structure of Scientific Theories, The University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  72. Suppes, P.: 1957, Introduction to Logic, Van Nostrand, New York.Google Scholar
  73. Suppes, P.: 1967, ‘What is a Scientific Theory’, in S. Morgenbesser (ed.), Philosophy of Science Today, Basic Books, New York, pp. 55–67. [1967a.]Google Scholar
  74. Suppes, P.: 1967, Set-Theoretic Structures in Science, mimeographed, Stanford University, Stanford, [1967b.]Google Scholar
  75. Suppes, P.: 1969, Studies in the Methodology and Foundations of Science, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  76. Suszko, R.: 1968, ‘Formal Logic and the Development of Knowledge’, in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Problems in the Philosophy of Science, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 210–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Swijtink, Z.: 1976, ‘Eliminability in a Cardinal’, Studia Logica 35, 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Toulmin, S.: 1972, Human Understanding, Vol. I, Princeton Unviersity Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  79. Tuomela, R.: 1973, Theoretical Concepts, Springer, Vienna.Google Scholar
  80. Tuomela, R.: 1978a, ‘Scientific Change and Approximation’, in Niiniluoto and Tuomela ( 1978 ), pp. 265–297.Google Scholar
  81. Tuomela, R.: 1978b, ‘On the Structuralist Approach to the Structure and Dynamics of Theories’, Synthese 39, 211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Törnebohm, H.: 1976, ‘On Piecemeal Knowledge-Formation’, in Bogdan, pp. 297–318.Google Scholar
  83. van Fraassen, B.: 1970, ‘On the Extension of Beth’s Semantics of Physical Theories’, Philosophy of Science 37, 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wojcicki, R.: 1973, ‘Basic Concepts of Formal Methodology of Empirical Sciences’, Ajatus 35, 168–196.Google Scholar
  85. Wojcicki, R.: 1974a, ‘Set-Theoretic Representations of Empirical Phenomena’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 3, 337–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wojcicki, R., 1974b, ‘Comments on Przetecki’, Studia Logica 33, 105–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Additional Bibliography

  1. Balzer, W.: Empirische Geometrie und Raum-Zeit-Theorie in mengen-theoretischer Darstellung, Kronberg, 1978.Google Scholar
  2. Balzer, W.: ‘On the Status of Arithmetic’, Erkenntnis 14 (1979), 57–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Diederich, W. and Fulda, H.F.: ‘Sneed’sche Strukturen in Marx’ “Kapital”’, Neue Hefte für Philosophie 13 (1978), 47–80.Google Scholar
  4. Moulines, C.U.: ‘Cuantificadores existenciales y principios-guia en las teorias fisicas’, Critica 10 (1978), 59–88.Google Scholar
  5. Moulines, C.U. and Sneed, J.: ‘Suppes’ Philosophy of Physics’, in R.J. Bogdan (ed.), Patrick Suppes, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979, pp. 59–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Sneed, J.: The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics, 2nd revised edition, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Stegmüller, W.: The Structuralist View of Theories: A Possible Analogue of the Bourbaki Programme in Physical Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilkka Niiniluoto
    • 1
  1. 1.University of HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations