Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:04:31.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Major Failure within Modern Analytic Philosophy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Patrick Sibelius
Patrick Sibelius*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Abo Academy
*
†Send reprint requests to the author, Department of Mathematics, Abo Academy, Fänriksgatan 3, SF-20500 Turku, Finland.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper claims that analytic philosophy has failed within the philosophy of science due to the way the dynamic aspect of scientific theories is traditionally treated. On the formal side this failure manifests itself in the first-order logical and the model-theoretic analyses of scientific theories. An amendment of the treatment is sketched. It is based on using model generation, of the kind used in proving the Completeness Theorem for first-order logic, in such a way that some dynamic quantities in the dynamic theory are formally represented as functions relating closed terms and sentences to their interpretations in a generated model.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 60 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 558 - 567
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1993

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.)

References

Albeverio, S. et al. (1986), Nonstandard Methods in Stochastic Analysis and Mathematical Physics. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bourbaki, N. (1974–), Elements of Mathematics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1928), Der logische Aufbau der Welt. Berlin: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1976), Semantics of Questions and Questions of Semantics. Acta Philosophica Fennica 28, no. 4.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1988), “What is the Logic of Experimental Inquiry?” Synthese 74: 173–190.10.1007/BF00869551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, D. ([1748] 1977), An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Quine, W. (1961), From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1903), The Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. (1966), The Foundations of Scientific Inference. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Sibelius, P. (1987), Explanations and the Concept of Action in Mechanics. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Sibelius, P. (1989), “An Interpretation within Philosophy of the Relationship Between Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics”, Foundations of Physics 19: 1315–1326.10.1007/BF00732753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibelius, P. (1990a), “The Mechanical and the Wave-Theoretical Aspects of Momentum Considering Discrete Action”, Foundations of Physics 20: 1033–1059.10.1007/BF00731851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibelius, P. (1990b), Natural Contradictions and the Concept of Action in Mechanics, Acta Academiae Aboensis, Mathematica et Physica 50, no. 2.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1987), “Propensity Representations of Probability”, Erkenntnis 26: 335–358.10.1007/BF00167720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Heijenoort, J. (ed.) (1981), From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic 1879–1931. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar