Abstract
Selected historical and contemporary aspects of the debate between the syntactic and semantic views of scientific theories are presented. The theory of institutions is an abstract model theory approach which allows representation of both the syntactic and semantic views of scientific theories in a way which is free from dependence upon particular formal languages and logics. The standard definition of an institution, and the logical equivalence of the syntactic and the semantic definitions of a theory over an institution are presented. The value of the theory of institutions for formalising computer science theories is reviewed and the wider methodological implications of this approach are considered. Formalising social science theories in the theory of institutions has a number of benefits including enabling approaches which simultaneously require the use of more than one theoretical vocabulary and permitting transitions between different levels of abstraction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Angius, N., Dimarogkona, M., & Stefaneas, P. (2017). Building and integrating semantic theories over institutions. In S. Lambropoulou, P. Stefaneas, D. Theodorou, & L. Kauffman (Eds.), Algebraic modeling of topological and computational structures and applications (pp. 363–374). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Angius, N., & Stefaneas, P. (2016). Discovering empirical theories of modular software systems: An algebraic approach. In V. Müller (Ed.), Computing and philosophy: Selected papers from IACAP 2014 (pp. 99–115). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Baier, C., & Katoen, J.-P. (2008). Principles of model checking. Cambridge, UK: MIT Press.
Barwise, J. (1974). Axioms for abstract model theory. Annals of Mathematical Logic, 7, 221–265.
Bell, J., & Slomson, A. (1974). Models and ultraproducts: An introduction (3rd ed.). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Carnap, R. (1939). Foundations of logic and mathematics. International Encyclopedia, I, no. 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chang, C., & Keisler, J. (1990). Model theory. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Diaconescu, R. (1998). Extra theory morphisms for institutions: Logical semantics for multi-paradigm languages. Applied Categorical Structures, 6, 427–453.
Diaconescu, R. (2008). Institution-independent model theory. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser.
Diaconescu, R., Goguen, J., & Stefaneas, P. (1993). Logical support for modularization. In G. Huet & G. Plotkin (Eds.), Logical environments (pp. 83–100). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dimarogkona, M., & Stefaneas, P. (2013). Semantic networks and institutions. In A. Pinus, K. Ponomarev, S. Sudoplatov, & E. Timoshenko (Eds.), Algebra and model theory 9 (pp. 8–18). Novosibirsk, Russia: Novosibirsk State Technical University.
Glymour, C. (2013). Theoretical equivalence and the semantic view of theories. Philosophy of Science, 80, 286–297.
Goguen, J. (1986). A study in the functions of programming methodology: Specifications, institutions, charters and parchments. In C. Pitt, S. Abramsky, A. Poigne & D. Rydeheard (Eds.). Category theory and computer programming (Lecture notes in computer science 240, pp. 313–333). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Goguen, J. (2004). Information integration in institutions. https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~goguen/pps/ifi04.pdf
Goguen, J., & Burstall, R. (1984). Introducing institutions. In E. Clarke & D. Kozen (Eds.), Proceedings of logics of programming workshop (Lecture notes in computer science 164, pp. 221–256). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Goguen, J., & Burstall, R. (1992). Institutions: Abstract model theory for specification and programming. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 39, 95–146.
Goguen, J., & Rosu, G. (2002). Institution morphisms. Formal Aspects of Computing, 13, 274–307.
Halvorson, H. (2012). What scientific theories could not be. Philosophy of Science, 79, 183–206.
Halvorson, H. (2013). The semantic view, if plausible, is syntactic. Philosophy of Science, 80, 475–478.
Hempel, C. (1970). On the “standard conception” of scientific theories. In M. Radner & S. Winokur (Eds.), Theories and methods of physics and psychology, Minnesota studies in philosophy of science volume iv (pp. 142–163). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Kelly, K. (2004). Learning theory and epistemology. In I. Niiniluoto, M. Sintonen, & J. Wolenski (Eds.), Handbook of epistemology (pp. 183–203). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lawvere, F. (1969). Adjointness in foundations. Dialectica, 23, 281–296.
Lindström, P. (1969). On extensions of elementary logic. Theoria, 35, 1–11.
Lutz, S. (2012). On a straw man in the philosophy of science: A defense of the received view. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 2, 77–120.
Lutz, S. (2014). What’s right with a syntactic approach to theories and models? Erkenntnis, 79(8 Suppl), 1475–1492.
Lutz, S. (2017). What was the syntax-semantics debate in the philosophy of science about? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 95, 319–352.
MacLane, S. (1998). Categories for the working mathematician. New York: Springer.
Mossakowski, T., Goguen, J., Diaconescu, R., & Tarlecki, A. (2005). What is a logic? In J.-Y. Beziau (Ed.), Logica universalis: Towards a general theory of logic (pp. 113–133). Basel, Switzerland: Birkhauser.
Muller, F. (2010). Reflections on the revolution at Stanford. Synthese, 183, 87–114.
Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Putnam, H. (1962). What theories are not. In E. Nagel, P. Suppes, & A. Tarski (Eds.), Logic, methodology, and philosophy of science: Proceedings of the 1960 international congress (pp. 240–251). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Suppe, F. (1989). The semantic conception of theories and scientific realism. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Suppe, F. (2000). Understanding scientific theories: An assessment of developments, 1969–1998. Philosophy of Science, 67, S102–S115.
Suppes, P. (2002). Representation and invariance of scientific structures. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Tarski, A. (1944). The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4, 341–376.
van Fraassen, B. (1989). Laws and symmetry. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
van Fraassen, B. (2002). The empirical stance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
van Fraassen, B. (2008). Scientific representation: Paradoxes of perspective. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
van Fraassen, B. (2014). One or two gentle remarks about Hans Halvorson’s critique of the semantic view. Philosophy of Science, 81, 276–283.
Acknowledgements
The first author was supported by a PhD grant from the National Technical University of Athens.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dimarogkona, M., Addis, M., Stefaneas, P. (2019). Syntax, Semantics and the Formalisation of Social Science Theories. In: Addis, M., Lane, P.C.R., Sozou, P.D., Gobet, F. (eds) Scientific Discovery in the Social Sciences. Synthese Library, vol 413. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23769-1_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23769-1_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23768-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23769-1
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)