Advertisement

Reconstruction

  • Erhard Scheibe

Abstract

Reconstructionism is a methodology of logical empiricism on according to which in epistemology and philosophy of science “one should not describe the real process of obtaining knowledge in its concrete constitution but rather give a rational reconstruction of its formal structure” (Carnap, see the beginning of [13]). The reconstruction is meant to be a translation of a primary scientific text into a logically impeccable language such that “the new determinations.....are superior to the old ones with respect to clarity and precision” (Carnap, ibid.). In the sixties this methodology came under fire from two sides. From the side of constructive philosophy of science, its advocates were blamed for keeping their reconstructions much too close to the actual procedure of the scientists without ever giving them a critical touch. By contrast, the representatives of the historically oriented philosophy of science deplored the lack of real life in the reconstructions, these being “generally unrecognizable as science to either historians of science or scientists themselves” (Kuhn, see §I of [13]). In other words, what looked too descriptive for the constructivists appeared too normative for the historians. Reconstructionism thus cornered from two sides is the subject of papers [13] and [14] and is defended against its opponents, mainly those in the Kuhn/Feyerabend camp.1

Keywords

Physical Theory Axiom System Rational Reconstruction Logical Empiricism Historical Reconstruction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    See also Scheibe 1997b, Ch. I.3; 1986c and 1988gGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Feyerabend 1981c, p. 237Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See also Scheibe 1999Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A simpler version of [12] is Scheibe 1983Google Scholar
  5. *.
    First published as Scheibe 1979Google Scholar
  6. 1.
    Bourbaki 1968Google Scholar
  7. 2.
    Suppe 1974Google Scholar
  8. 3.
    v. Neumann 1932Google Scholar
  9. 4.
    Scheibe 1964 and 1973cGoogle Scholar
  10. 5.
    Bourbaki 1968Google Scholar
  11. 6.
    See e.g. Hermann 1970 for vector bundles and Choquet-Bruhat et al. 1977 for manifoldsGoogle Scholar
  12. 7.
    Suppes 1957, Sneed 1971, Stegmüller 1976Google Scholar
  13. 8.
    Ludwig 1978Google Scholar
  14. 9.
    Shoenfield 1967, and Mal’cev 1971Google Scholar
  15. 10.
    Shoenfield 1967, Ch. 4.6Google Scholar
  16. 11.
    Shoenfield 1967, Ch. 6.9Google Scholar
  17. 12.
    Mackey 1963, Ch. 1; Hermann 1970, vol. 2, Ch. 11; Choquet-Bruhat et al. 1977, Ch. IV, C.9Google Scholar
  18. 13.
    Mackey 1963, Ch. 1.1Google Scholar
  19. 14.
    Sneed 1971Google Scholar
  20. 10.
    Mackey 1963 Chs. 2.2 and 2.3 (restricted to axioms I–VI)Google Scholar
  21. 16.
    Mackey 1963, Ch. 2.2; Varadarajan 1968, Chs. I, VI and VII; Scheibe 1964, and 1973c, Chs. II, III and VGoogle Scholar
  22. 17.
    Anderson 1967; Künzle 1973Google Scholar
  23. *.
    First published as Scheibe 1982bGoogle Scholar
  24. 1.
    Ludwig 1970Google Scholar
  25. 2.
    Ludwig 1978; 21990Google Scholar
  26. 3.
    Sneed 1971Google Scholar
  27. 4.
    Stegmüller 1979Google Scholar
  28. 5.
    Sneed 1976, p. 144, no.2Google Scholar
  29. 6.
    Suppe 1974, p. 223, no.558Google Scholar
  30. 7.
    For a detailed exposition the reader is referred to Fraenkel et al. 1973, Ch. IIGoogle Scholar
  31. 8.
    For details see Fraenkel et al. 1973, Ch. II.7Google Scholar
  32. 9.
    Ludwig 1978, Sect. 6Google Scholar
  33. 10.
    Ludwig 1978, Sections 2, 4 and 7Google Scholar
  34. 11.
    Bourbaki 1968, Ch. IV. As regards the physical significance of the invariance property of α the reader is referred to some relevant remarks in Scheibe 1982c (this vol. VII.31)Google Scholar
  35. 12.
    Ludwig 1978, sect. 7.3Google Scholar
  36. 13.
    Bourbaki 1968, Ch. IV., sect. 1.6Google Scholar
  37. 14.
    Ludwig 1978, sect. 5Google Scholar
  38. 15.
    Ludwig 1978, p. 10Google Scholar
  39. 16.
    See Sneed 1971, pp. 161 ff, for the original presentation of the semantical S-conceptGoogle Scholar
  40. 17.
    Balzer/ Sneed 1977Google Scholar
  41. 18.
    Cf. Sneed 1976, p. 162; Balzer/Sneed 1977, p. 197Google Scholar
  42. 19.
    Balzer/ Sneed 1977, p. 196Google Scholar
  43. 20.
    Stegmüller 1979, Sections 1 and 2Google Scholar
  44. *.
    Originally published as Scheibe 1984a, translated for this volume by Hans-Jakob WilhelmGoogle Scholar
  45. 1.
    Bergmann 21967, p. 32Google Scholar
  46. 2.
    Carnap 21961a, p. 139Google Scholar
  47. 3.
    ibid. p. 191. See also Carnap 21961b, p. 300ff.Google Scholar
  48. 4.
    Popper 21973, p. 6f. (1959, p. 31f)Google Scholar
  49. 5.
    Reichenbach 1938, p. 5f (1983, p. 3)Google Scholar
  50. 6.
    Carnap 21961ab, p. IXGoogle Scholar
  51. 7.
    Toulmin 1972, p. 62Google Scholar
  52. 8.
    Kuhn 1977a, p. 14 (1977b, p. 65)Google Scholar
  53. 9.
    Kuhn 1970, p. 21Google Scholar
  54. 10.
    Janich et al. 1974, Ch.II.IGoogle Scholar
  55. 11.
    Mittelstraß 1981, pp. 90ffGoogle Scholar
  56. 12.
    Stegmüller 1973, p. 23fGoogle Scholar
  57. 13.
    no.6. For further discussion of this topic see Carnap 21962, Ch.I.Google Scholar
  58. 14.
    Feyerabend 1973Google Scholar
  59. 15.
    Kant 1764, p. 283f and 285Google Scholar
  60. 16.
    Tarski 1936. Here we are given definitions (for several object languages) as well as conditions of adequacy for the concept of truth. — Hempel/Oppenheim 1948. In this work on explanation we are given, besides conditions of adequacy, a definition of the concept of explanation ((7.6) in conjunction with (7.8)). Due to a great number of difficulties a second attempt of this kind has never been seriously undertaken in the extensive literature that followed. — We find the opposite situation in the attempts at explicating the concept of truthlikeness. For an overview see Niiniluoto 1978.Google Scholar
  61. 17.
    See Berkeley 1951 and the subsequent articles in the same volume.Google Scholar
  62. 18.
    See, for example, Kline 1980.Google Scholar
  63. 19.
    The first comprehensive reconstruction of Aristotelean logic within the framework of the new logic is found in Lukasiewicz 1951. For the historical reconstruction of Aristotelean logic see Patzig 1959. For the idea that the mentioned deviations can also have repercussions for modern logic see Lambert 1967.Google Scholar
  64. 20.
    For the development sketched here see the book cited in no. 18. Particularly useful for the purpose of a systematic comparison is Fraenkel et al. 21973.Google Scholar
  65. 21.
    For an overview see Suppe 1974.Google Scholar
  66. 22.
    A sketch of the situation and references are given in Scheibe 1982a.Google Scholar
  67. 23.
    See p. 24 of the book cited in no. 10.Google Scholar
  68. 24.
    Kant 21787, B XIIIGoogle Scholar
  69. 25.
    Lakatos 1978, vol.i, p. 102Google Scholar
  70. 26.
    ibid. vol.2, p. 108ffGoogle Scholar
  71. *.
    First published as Scheibe 1988f. Translated for this volume by Hans-Jakob WilhelmGoogle Scholar
  72. 1.
    Toulmin 1972, p. 62Google Scholar
  73. 2.
    Kuhn 1977a, p. 14 (1977b, p. 65)Google Scholar
  74. 3.
    Feyerabend 1975, pp. 300ff (1976, p. 399ff)Google Scholar
  75. 4.
    Reichenbach 1938, p. 5f (1983, p. 2f)Google Scholar
  76. 5.
    Feyerabend 1975, pp. 165ff (1976, p. 230)Google Scholar
  77. 6.
    ibid. p. 254 (p. 349)Google Scholar
  78. 7.
    On this issue compare the more extended treatment in Scheibe 1984a (this vol. IIL13).Google Scholar
  79. 8.
    Feyerabend 1975, pp. 47ff (1976, p. 48f)Google Scholar
  80. 9.
    ibid. p. 252f, (1976, p. 348)Google Scholar
  81. 10.
    Oppenheim/ Putnam 1958, p. 4 (1970, p. 340)Google Scholar
  82. 11.
    Feyerabend 1965c, p. 149Google Scholar
  83. 12.
    Besides Feyerabend’s works cited above see especially Kuhn 21970.Google Scholar
  84. 13.
    Feyerabend 1965c, p. 227, no. 19Google Scholar
  85. 14.
    Feyerabend 1973, p. 98Google Scholar
  86. 15.
    Kuhn 1983, p. 670fGoogle Scholar
  87. 16.
    For the following see Scheibe 1986c.Google Scholar
  88. 17.
    Feyerabend 1981c, p. 114f (German in Feyerabend 1981a, p. 141)Google Scholar
  89. 18.
    Scheibe 1982c (this vol. VII.31)Google Scholar
  90. 19.
    Ehlers 1986Google Scholar
  91. 20.
    See esp. Chs. 16 and 17 (resp. 17 and 18) of the works quoted in no. 17Google Scholar
  92. 21.
    Scheibe 1988b (this vol. II.6)Google Scholar
  93. 22.
    In addition to the papers cited in no.20 see also Scheibe 1989b.Google Scholar
  94. 23.
    Feyerabend 1973, p. 101Google Scholar
  95. 25.
    On the relationship between Bohr and Heisenberg see Folse 1985, Ch. 3.7 and 8.Google Scholar
  96. 26.
    Heisenberg 1969, p. 135. The original formulation refers to Newtonian mechanics.Google Scholar
  97. 27.
    Weizsäcker 1971, p. 193f (1980, p. 156)Google Scholar
  98. 28.
    Feyerabend 1981a, p. 446Google Scholar
  99. 29.
    Primas 1981Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erhard Scheibe
    • 1
  1. 1.HamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations