Philosophy of Science

Abstract In this paper two viewpoints about scientific theories will be introduced. These two viewpoints are: 1- received view and 2- semantic view about scientific theories. It should be emphasized that our major focus is on the semantic view to scientific theories. The first one, now, does not have any considerable adherents and mainly logical positivist philosophers were its defenders. The received view has two important problems: 1- it is highly impractical that we want to formalize the scientific theories in the first order logic language and 2- its characterization of role and status of models in the scientific theories is inappropriate. We will notice that the semantic view, in particular the version that da Costa and French introduced, by its use of structure, can dissolve these problems and many problems that this view is involved with and this approach is in agreement with what scientists do in reality, in particular physicists try to model natural phenomena.

Abstract   Bruno Latour, redefining human and their artifacts and defending their multi-threaded nature, considering their intermediaries (not only as devices), defends their status as citizens. Doing this he frees us from the duality of the autonomous technology and therefore from the domination atmosphere (domination of human over non-human and domination of non-human over man).

Abstract Kuhn’s philosophy is known as the beginning of thpost-positivistic period. In this essay by reviewing Kuhn's critiques on empiricism we'll see that by weakening and justifying the epistemic roles of experience he tries to support and expand the relativism to the realm of natural sciences. Although Kuhn seriously criticizes the Vienna Circle, he at the same time maintains some of positivist principles. Thus, according to some interpretations Kuhn’s relativism is the logical consequence of some positivistic foundations and therefore his view is the continuation of positivism. Evaluation evidences of this claim would be the end of this essay.

Abstract

Abstract Modern science, soul faculties, traditional knowledge, Islamic world, science, the power of imagination, the power of reason  

Abstract In this paper two viewpoints about scientific theories will be introduced. These two viewpoints are: 1- received view and 2- semantic view about scientific theories. It should be emphasized that our major focus is on the semantic view to scientific theories. The first one, now, does not have any considerable adherents and mainly logical positivist philosophers were its defenders. The received view has two important problems: 1- it is highly impractical that we want to formalize the scientific theories in the first order logic language and 2- its characterization of role and status of models in the scientific theories is inappropriate. We will notice that the semantic view, in particular the version that da Costa and French introduced, by its use of structure, can dissolve these problems and many problems that this view is involved with and this approach is in agreement with what scientists do in reality, in particular physicists try to model natural phenomena.

Abstract   According to the logical empiricists, the received view, a scientific theory is a set of propositions formalized in first-order logic. According to the rival view, semantic or non-propositional view, it is a set of models. In this article, I will argue that the received view cannot suggest an acceptable model for identifying the generalized forces in classical mechanics. In the second section, the invariance of Lagrange equations and its consequences are discussed. Besides, I show that the invariance implies that alike physical magnitudes will be different dimensionally. The third section firstly introduces the last version of the received view. After that, it is argued that Lagrangian mechanics formalized in this view cannot identify alike physical magnitudes similarly. In the last section, the semantic view of Suppes-Sneed and Lagrangian mechanics in this view are introduced. Finally, I show that this view can identify alike physical magnitudes similarly.