Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:07:33.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Approaches to Reduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Kenneth F. Schaffner
Kenneth F. Schaffner*
Affiliation:
The University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Four current accounts of theory reduction are presented, first informally and then formally: (1) an account of direct theory reduction that is based on the contributions of Nagel, Woodger, and Quine, (2) an indirect reduction paradigm due to Kemeny and Oppenheim, (3) an “isomorphic model” schema traceable to Suppes, and (4) a theory of reduction that is based on the work of Popper, Feyerabend, and Kuhn. Reference is made, in an attempt to choose between these schemas, to the explanation of physical optics by Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, and to the revisions of genetics necessitated by partial biochemical reductions of genetics. A more general reduction schema is proposed which: (1) yields as special cases the four reduction paradigms considered above, (2) seems to be in better accord with both the canons of logic and actual scientific practice, and (3) clarifies the problems of meaning variance and ontological reduction.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , June 1967 , pp. 137 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1967

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.)

Footnotes

†

I wish to express my appreciation to Professors Ernest Nagel, Sidney Morgenbesser, and W. V. Quine for their helpful comments on materials presented in this paper. A shorter version of this paper was read at the annual meeting of The American Philosophical Association, Western Division, Chicago, May 1967.

References

REFERENCES

[1] Achinstein, P., “On the Meaning of Scientific Terms,” Journal of Philosophy, LXI, No. 17, (Sept. 17, 1964), pp. 497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Adams, E. W., “The Foundations of Rigid Body Mechanics and the Derivation of its Laws from those of Particle Mechanics,” The Axiomatic Method, L. Henkin, P. Suppes, and A. Tarski (eds.) Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1959, pp. 250–65.Google Scholar
[3] Benzer, S., “The Elementary Units of Heredity,” Chemical Basis of Heredity, W. McElroy and B. Glass (eds.) Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1957, pp. 70–93.Google Scholar
[4] Bonner, P. M., Heredity, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1961.Google Scholar
[5] Church, A., Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Princeton: Princeton University Press, I, 1956.Google Scholar
[6] Feyerabend, P. K., “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism,” Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, III, H. Feigl and G. Maxwell (eds.) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962, pp. 28–97.Google Scholar
[7] Feyerabend, P. K., “On the ‘Meaning’ of Scientific Terms,” Journal of Philosophy LXII, No. 10 (May 13, 1965), pp. 266–74.Google Scholar
[8] Feigl, H., “The Mental and the Physical,” Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, II, (eds.) G. Maxwell, H. Feigl, and M. Scriven, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1958.Google Scholar
[9] Haggis, G. H. et al., (eds.), Introduction to Molecular Biology. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1964.Google Scholar
[10] Hesse, M. B., Models and Analogies in Science, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1966.Google Scholar
[11] Kemeny, J. G., and Oppenheim, P., “On Reduction,” Philosophical Studies, VII (1956), pp. 6–17.10.1007/BF02333288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Kuhn, T. S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
[13] Nagel, E., The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1961.10.1119/1.1937571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Nagel, E., “The Meaning of Reduction in the Natural Sciences,” Philosophy of Science, eds. A. Danto and S. Morgenbesser, Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1960, pp. 288–312.Google Scholar
[15] Popper, K. R., “The Aim of Science,” Ratio, I (1957), pp. 24–35.Google Scholar
[16] Popper, K. R., “Truth, Rationality, and The Growth of Scientific Knowledge” in his Conjectures and Refutations, New York: Basic Books, 1962, pp. 215–50.Google Scholar
[17] Quine, W. V., “Interpretations of Sets of Conditions,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, IXX (June 1954), pp. 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18] Quine, W. V., “Ontological Reduction and the World of Numbers,” Journal of Philosophy, LXI (March 26, 1964) pp. 209–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19] Shapere, D., “Meaning and Scientific Charge,” Mind and Cosmos: Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy, R. Colodny (ed.) Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966, pp. 41–85.Google Scholar
[20] Sklar, L., “Intertheoretic Reduction in the Natural Sciences,” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1964.Google Scholar
[21] Sommerfeld, A., Optics, New York: Academic Press, 1964.Google Scholar
[22] Stahl, F. W., The Mechanics of Inheritance, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1964.Google Scholar
[23] Suppes, P., Introduction to Logic, Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co. Inc., 1957.Google Scholar
[24] Suppes, P., “What is a Scientific Theory?” A Forum Lecture delivered on the Voice of America. Prepared for the United States Information Agency, Washington, D.C. n.d.Google Scholar
[25] Watson, J. D., and Crick, F. H. C., “A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid,” Nature CLXXI (1953), pp. 737–38.Google Scholar
[26] Woodger, J. H., Biology and Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952.Google Scholar
[27] Yanofsky, C. “On the Colinearity of the Gene Structure and Protein Structure,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. LI (February, 1964), pp. 266–72.Google Scholar