Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T23:29:32.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Verifiability, Simplicity, and Equivalence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

C. W. Berenda
C. W. Berenda*
Affiliation:
University of Oklahoma
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper is intended to provide a rather brief, suggestive, though not very precise, analysis of the significance of “contextualism” for “meaning”, and more specifically of the significance of “systematic (contextual) simplicity” in relation to “meaningful operations” in the language of natural science. The notion of “equivalent theories” is examined in conjunction with the question of simplicity, and finally, these ideas are brought to bear upon “realism” and “semantic realism” in particular. The pragmatic-aesthetic question of the role of simplicity in scientific theories is of some concern to philosophers of science. Henry Margenau (7:96) has pointed out that, among the metaphysical (epistemological) requirements of scientific theories, the “most embarrassing … is one which is often called the postulate of simplicity….” When a topic is embarrassing, the best way to help remove such embarrassment is to indulge further in frank and open discussion of the topic. This I have tried to do in what follows.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 1952 , pp. 70 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1952

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

1. Berenda, C. W.. “Philosophy of Science” Vol. 17, No. 2.Google Scholar
2. Cohen & Nagel. Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method.Google Scholar
3. Dampier, W.. History of Science. 3rd edition.Google Scholar
4. Feigl, H.. “Philosophy of Science,” Vol. 17, Nos. 1 & 2.Google Scholar
5. Feynman, R. P.. “Phys. Rev.,” 74, 943; 75, 486; 76, 749, 769.Google Scholar
6. Hempel, C. G.. “Revue Internat. de Philos.,” No. 11, Jan. 1950.Google Scholar
7. Margenau, H.. The Nature of Physical Reality.Google Scholar
8. Weinberg, C. B.. “Philosophy of Science,” Vol. 8, No. 4.Google Scholar
9. Weizsäcker, C.. Zum Weltbild der Physik, 4th edition.Google Scholar