Appendix: Some Basic Concepts of Philosophy of Science

  • Alexander Linsbichler


A brief outline of some basic concepts of philosophy of science over and above being a worthwhile end in itself prepares for the application of these concepts as analytical tools in the main body of the monograph. Particularly, a syntactic view of scientific theories, axiomatic systems, the idea of falsification, and the dichotomies analytic/synthetic and a priori/a posteriori are surveyed. Finally, the logical structure of explanations and predictions according to the DN model is presented and exemplified.


Syntactic view of theories Axiom Universal sentence DN model Explanation and prediction Falsification 


  1. Aebi, Magdalena. 1984. Kants Begründung der “Deutschen Philosophie”: Kants transzendentale Logik; Kritik ihrer Begründung. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2012. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Newburyport: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Fetzer, James H. 2000. “The Paradoxes of Hempelian Explanation”. In Science, Explanation, and Rationality: Aspects of the Philosophy of Carl G. Hempel, edited by James H. Fetzer, 111–137. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Gardiner, Patrick, ed. 1992. The Philosophy of History. [Reprint.]. Oxford Readings in Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Halvorson, Hans. 2012. “What Scientific Theories Could Not Be*”. Philosophy of Science 79(2): 183–206. doi:  10.1086/664745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ———. 2013. “The Semantic View, If Plausible, Is Syntactic”. Philosophy of Science 80(3): 475–478. doi:  10.1086/671077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hempel, Carl G. 1942. “The Function of general Laws in History”. The Journal of Philosophy 39: 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 1962. “Explanation in Science and History”. In Frontiers of Science and Philosophy, edited by R. Colodny, 9–19. Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hempel, Carl G., and Paul Oppenheim 1948. “Studies in the Logic of Explanation”. Philosophy of Science 15(2): 135–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lutz, Sebastian. 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(1): 77–120. doi:  10.1086/664460.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 2014. “What’s Right with a Syntactic Approach to Theories and Models?” Erkenn 79(S8): 1475–1492. doi:  10.1007/s10670-013-9578-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nagel, Ernest. 1961. The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. ———. (1934) 2008. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Repr. 2008 (twice). Routledge Classics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Reck, Erich. 2013. “Hempel, Carnap, and the Covering Law Model”. In The Berlin Group and the Philosophy of Logical Empiricism, edited by Nikolay Milkov and Volker Peckhaus, 311–324. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science 273. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Suppe, Frederick, ed. 1979. The Structure of Scientific Theories. 2. edn., 2. print. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 1989. The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Linsbichler
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ViennaWienAustria

Personalised recommendations