Criteria for Meaning Changes in Theoretical Physics

Part of the Studies in the Foundations, Methodology and Philosophy of Science book series (FOUNDATION, volume 4)


A theory can be revised by replacing or modifying one or more of its component statements. Such revision is usually thought of as and often is of a straightforward factual claim. The discovery of a tenth planet would require simply that one specification of the solar system’s components be replaced by another in the classical mechanical theory of the solar system’s motion. The concepts used in this theory, e.g. ‘mass’, ‘force’, ‘natural satellite’, seemingly suffer no revision as a consequence of this type of theoretical revision.


Conceptual Change Material Object Singular Term Cloud Chamber Particle Mechanic 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Achinstein, P.: Concepts of science:A philosophical analysis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press 1968.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    — On the “meaning” of scientific terms. J. Phil. 62, 266–274 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bunge, M.: Scientific research, vols. I and IL Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer 1967 b.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    — Foundations of physics. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer 1967 a.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    — Physical Axiomatics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 463–474 (1967c).ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dijksterhuis, E. J.: Mechanization of the world picture, p. 22. Oxford University Press 1961.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dretske, F.: Seeing and knowing. Chicago: Chicago University Press 1969.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feyerabend, P.K.: Explanation, reduction and empiricism. Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, vol. 3, eds. H. Feigl and G. Maxwell. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 1962.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fine, A.: Consistency, derivability and scientific change. J. Phil. 64, 231–240 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frege,G.: On sense and reference. Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottleb Frege,P. Geatch and M. Black. Oxford: Basil Black well,1892.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giedymin, J.: The paradox of meaning variance. British J. Philos. Sci. 21, 257–268 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hanson, N.R. :Patterns of discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1958Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hesse, M.B.: Fine’s criteria for meaning change. J. Phil. 65, 46–52 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jammer, M.: Concepts of mass. New York: Harper and Brothers 1961Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kleiner,S. A.: Erotetic logic and the structure of scientific revolution. British J. Philos. Sci. 21, 149–165 (1970a).zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    — Ontological and terminological commitment and the methodological commensurability of theories. Read at the Philosophy of Science Assoc., second Biennial Meeting (1970 b).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuhn, T. S.: The structure of scientific revolutions, second ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press 1970.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shapere, D.: The structure of scientific revolutions. Phil. Rev. 73,383–394 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    — Meaning and scientific change. Mind and cosmos, ed. R. Colodny. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press 1966.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suppes, P.: Introduction to logic, p. 291–304. Princeton: D. van Nostrand 1957.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ToulminS.E., Goodfield, J.: The architecture of matter. New York: Harper Brothers 1962 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1971

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations