Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:03:32.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On Achinstein's Concepts of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Fred Wilson*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto

Extract

This book is in the tradition that defines the philosophical center of contemporary philosophy of science, the tradition of Carnap, Hempel, and Nagel as supplemented by generous additions from Austin and an Oxfordized Wittgenstein in the style introduced by N. R. Hanson. This tradition has been criticized both from the philosophical left, by Sellars, and from the philosophical right, by Bergmann. Achinstein's work is so squarely in the center that neither Sellars nor Bergmann ever appear in the index. That makes the book the third or fourth generation of a series in that central tradition all of which have been concerned largely with discussing their predecessors in that same tradition. This series is now producing books—Achinstein's is one of them—that have the virtues and the defects of an ingrown aristocracy: finely shaped features; an aloofness with respect to which no doubt is felt that it is justified ; and in their quarrels among themselves the cunning of foxes; but with none of the robust life and vitality of lions that first secured them the right to rule.

Type
Discussion
Copyright
Copyright © 1971 by The Philosophy of Science Association

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

Peter Achinstein, Concepts of Science, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968, (xiii + 266 pp.). Unless otherwise indicated parenthetic page references are to this book.

References

[1] Bergmann, G., Philosophy of Science, Madison, Wisconsin, 1958.Google Scholar
[2] Bergmann, G., “Physics and Ontology,” in his Logic and Reality, Madison, Wisconsin, 1964, pp. 108123.Google Scholar
[3] Broad, C. D., “The Relation between Induction and Probability I and II,” in his Induction, Probability and Causation, Dordrecht, Holland, 1968, pp. 152.10.1007/978-94-017-1868-4_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Brodbeck, M., “Explanation, Prediction, and ‘Imperfect’ Knowledge,” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, (eds. H. Feigl and G. Maxwell), vol. III, Minneapolis, 1962, pp. 231272.Google Scholar
[5] Brodbeck, M., “Mental and Physical: Identity vs. Sameness,” in Mind, Matter and Method, (eds. P. K. Feyerabend and G. Maxwell), Minneapolis, 1966, pp. 4058.Google Scholar
[6] Buchdahl, H. A., The Concepts of Classical Thermodynamics, Cambridge, 1966.Google Scholar
[7] Campbell, N. R., Foundations of Science (formerly, Physics: The Elements), New York, 1957.Google Scholar
[8] Carnap, R., “The Methodological Character of Theoretical Concepts,” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, (eds. H. Feigl and M. Scriven), vol. I, Minneapolis, 1956, pp. 3876.Google Scholar
[9] Carnap, R., “Testability and Meaning,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 3 (1936), pp. 420468 and vol. 4 (1937), pp. 1-40.10.1086/286432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Feigl, H., and Brodbeck, M., eds., Readings in the Philosophy of Science, New York, 1953.Google Scholar
[11] Hempel, C., and Oppenheim, P., “The Logic of Explanation,” in [10], pp. 319352.Google Scholar
[12] Pippard, A. B., The Elements of Classical Thermodynamics, Cambridge, 1957.Google Scholar
[13] Sears, F. W., Thermodynamics, the Kinetic Theory of Gases and Statistical Mechanics, 2nd ed., Cambridge, Mass., 1953.Google Scholar
[14] Sellars, W., “The Language of Theories,” in his Science, Perception, and Reality, London, 1963, pp. 106126.Google Scholar
[15] Wilson, F., “Definition and Discovery,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 18 (1967), pp. 287303 and vol. 19 (1967), pp. 43-56.10.1093/bjps/18.4.287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16] Wilson, F., “Dispositions: Defined or Reduced?,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 47 (1969), pp. 184204.10.1080/00048406912341191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17] Wilson, F., “Explanation in Aristotle, Newton, and Toulmin,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 36 (1969), pp. 291310 and pp. 400-428.10.1086/288258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18] Wilson, F., “The Notion of Logical Necessity in the Later Philosophy of Rudolph Carnap,” in A. Hausman and F. Wilson Carnap and Goodman: Two Formalists, The Hague, 1967, pp. 97225.Google Scholar