Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T04:53:43.497Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theoretical Analyticity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

John A. Winnie
John A. Winnie*
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The logical analysis of the structure of scientific theory is a task which is central to any comprehensive philosophy of science, and in this sphere no philosopher has contributed more incisively than Rudolf Carnap. The clarity and rigor of his analyses have always made them apt candidates for fruitful discussion and criticism, and Professor Carnap's last proposal dealing with the problem of theoretical analyticity is, I hope to show, no exception to this rule. For my aim here is to take advantage of the rigor of Carnap's formulation by developing its consequences in some detail. The results which emerge from such a development are then employed to overcome some of the more weighty objections against the possibility of drawing an analytic-synthetic distinction for theoretical systems.

Type
Contributed Papers
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1970 , 1970 , pp. 289 - 305
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1970

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] Carnap, R., “The Methodological Character of Theoretical Concepts’, in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. I (ed. by Feigl, and Scriven, ), Minnesota, 1956.Google Scholar
[2] Carnap, R., ‘Meaning Postulates’, in Meaning and Necessity, 2nd. ed., Chicago, 1958.Google Scholar
[3] Carnap, R., ‘Replies and Systematic Expositions’, in The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap (ed. by Schilpp, P. A.), Open Court, 1963.Google Scholar
[4] Carnap, R., Philosophical Foundations of Physics, Basic Books, 1966.Google Scholar
[5] Hempel, C. G., ‘The Theoretician’s Dilemma’, in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. II (ed. by Feigl, Maxwell and Scriven), Minnesota, 1958.Google Scholar
[6] Hempel, C. G., ‘Implications of Catnap’s Work for the Philosophy of Science’,. in Schilpp [3] above.Google Scholar
[7] Maxwell, G., “The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities’, in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. III (ed. by Feigl and Maxwell), Minnesota, 1962.Google Scholar
[8] Quine, W. V. O., ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’, in From a Logical Point of View, 2nd. ed. Rev., Harvard, 1961.Google Scholar
[9] Quine, W. V. O., ‘Epistemology Naturalized’, in Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, Columbia Univ., 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Ramsey, F., “Theories’, in his The Foundations of Mathematics, 3rd. ed., Paul, Kegan, 1954.Google Scholar
[11] Robinson, A., Introduction to Model Theory and to the Metamathematics of Algebra, North-Holland Publ. Co., 1968.Google Scholar
[12] Rozeboom, W., ‘The Factual Content of Theoretical Concepts’, in Feigl and Maxwell, [7] above.Google Scholar