Synthese

, Volume 187, Issue 2, pp 569–577 | Cite as

Ramsification and inductive inference

Article

Abstract

An argument, different from the Newman objection, against the view that the cognitive content of a theory is exhausted by its Ramsey sentence is reviewed. The crux of the argument is that Ramsification may ruin inductive systematization between theory and observation. The argument also has some implications concerning the issue of underdetermination.

Keywords

Ramsey sentences Structural realism Inductive systematization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ainsworth P. (2009) Newman’s objection. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60: 135–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bohnert H. G. (1968) In defense of Ramsey’s elimination method. Journal of Philosophy 65: 275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braddon-Mitchell, D., Nola, R. (eds) (2009) Conceptual analysis and philosophical naturalism. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Cruse P. (2005) Ramsey sentences, structural realism and trivial realization. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 36: 557–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Demopoulos W., Friedman M. (1985) Critical notice: Bertrand Russell’s The analysis of matter: Its historical context and contemporary interest. Philosophy of Science 52: 621–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hempel, C. G. (1945). Studies in the logic of confirmation. Mind, 54, 1–26, 97–121. Reprinted in Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hempel, C. G. (1958). The theoretician’s dilemma: A study in the logic of theory construction. Reprinted in Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hesse M. (1970a) Theories and the transitivity of confirmation. Philosophy of Science 37: 50–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hesse, M. (1970b). An inductive logic of theories. In Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. IV, pp. 164–180). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hooker C. A. (1968) Craigian transcriptionism. American Philosophical Quarterly 5: 152–163Google Scholar
  11. Ketland J. (2004) Empirical adequacy and Ramsification. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55: 409–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ketland, J. (2009). Empirical adequacy and Ramsification, II. In A. Heike & H. Leitgeb (Eds.), Reduction–abstraction–analysis. Proceedings of 31st international Wittgenstein symposium (pp. 29–45). Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. Ladyman J. (2002) Understanding philosophy of science. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Ladyman, J. (2008). Structural realism. In E. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/.
  15. Laudan L. (1981) A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science 48: 19–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laudan L. (1990) Demystifying underdetermination. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 14: 267–297Google Scholar
  17. Laudan L. (1998) Underdetermination. In: Craig E. (Ed.) The Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Melia J., Saatsi J. (2006) Ramsification and theoretical content. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57: 561–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Newman M. H. A. (1928) Mr. Russell’s causal theory of perception. Mind 37: 137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Niiniluoto I. (1972) Inductive systematization: Definition and a critical survey. Synthese 25: 25–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Niiniluoto, I. (1973). Empirically trivial theories and inductive systematization. In R. Bogdan & I. Niiniluoto (Eds.), Logic, language and probability. (A selection of papers from the IVth international congress in logic, methodology and the philosophy of science.) (pp. 108–114). Reidel.Google Scholar
  22. Psillos, S. (2005). Underdetermination. In Encyclopedia of philosophy (2nd ed.). Gale MacMillan Reference.Google Scholar
  23. Psillos S. (2006) Ramsey’s Ramsey sentences. In: Galavotti M. C. (Ed.) Cambridge and Vienna: Frank P. Ramsey and the Vienna circle. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 67–90Google Scholar
  24. Ramsey F. (1931) Theories. In: Braithwaite R.B. (Ed.) The foundations of mathematics and other essays. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp 212–236Google Scholar
  25. Scheffler I. (1963) The anatomy of inquiry. Alfred A. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Scheffler I. (1968) Reflections on the Ramsey method. Journal of Philosophy 65: 269–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Skyrms B. (1966) Nomological necessity and the paradoxes of confirmation. Philosophy of Science 33: 230–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stegmüller, W. (1970). Theorie und Erfarung, Probleme und Resultate der Wissenschaftstheorie und analytischen Philosophie (Vol. II). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Tuomela R. (1973) Theoretical concepts. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tuomela R. (1974) Review. Journal of Symbolic Logic 39: 617–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Worrall, J. (1989). Structural realism: The best of both worlds? Dialectica, 43, 99–124. Reprinted in D. Papineau (Ed.), The philosophy of science (pp. 139–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Worrall, J., & Zahar, E. (2001). Ramseyfication and structural realism. Appendix IV in Zahar, E. (2001). Poincaré’s philosophy: From conventionalism to phenomenology (pp. 236–251). Chicago/La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art StudiesUniversity of HelsinkiUniversity of HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations