Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T23:38:09.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Correspondence Rules

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Kenneth F. Schaffner
Kenneth F. Schaffner*
Affiliation:
The University of Chicago
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The traditional role which correspondence rules, coordinating definitions, or semantical rules, have in a logical analysis of a scientific theory is questioned by providing an alternative analysis. The alternative account suggests that scientific theories are “meaningful” prior to the establishment of correspondence rules, and that correspondence rules are introduced to permit explanation and testing in the “observational” sector. The role of models is briefly assessed in connection with this prior or “antecedent theoretical meaning,” and a causal sequence analysis of a class of correspondence rules is presented which makes explicit the interdependence of scientific theories.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , September 1969, pp. 280 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 by The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Research supported by the National Science Foundation.

References

[1] Bridgeman, P. W., The Logic of Modern Physics, Macmillan, New York, 1927.Google Scholar
[2] Burks, A., “The Logic of Causal Propositions,” Mind, vol. 60, 1951, pp. 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Campbell, N. R., Foundations of Science, Dover Publications, New York, 1957. (Originally published as Physics: The Elements, in 1919).Google Scholar
[4] Carnap, R., Philosophical Foundations of Physics (ed. Gardner, M.), Basic Books, New York, 1966.Google Scholar
[5] Carnap, R., “Testability and Meaning,” in Readings in the Philosophy of Science (eds. Feigl, H. and Brodbeck, M.), Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1953.Google Scholar
[6] Church, A., Introduction to Mathematical Logic, vol. I, Princeton University Press, 1956.Google Scholar
[7] F⊘llesdal, D., “A Model Theoretic Approach to Causal Logic,” Det Kgl Norske Videnskabers Selskabs Skrifter, 1966, NR2, No. 164.Google Scholar
[8] Frank, P., Modern Science and Its Philosophy, Collier Books, New York, 1961.Google Scholar
[9] Grünbaum, A., “Law and Convention in Physical Theory,” in Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science (eds. Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G.), Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1961.Google Scholar
[10] Grünbaum, A., Philosophical Problems of Space and Time, A Knopf, New York, 1963.Google Scholar
[11] Hempel, C. G., Philosophy of Natural Science, Prentice-Hall, Englewood-Cliffs, N.J., 1966.Google Scholar
[12] Hempel, C. G., “The Theoretician's Dilemma,” Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. II (eds. H. Feigl, M. Scriven, and G. Maxwell), University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1958.Google Scholar
[13] Hesse, M. B., Forces and Fields, Littlefield, Adams & Co., Totowa, N.J., 1965.Google Scholar
[14] Jammer, M., The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1966.Google Scholar
[15] Lorentz, H. A., “Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving with Any Velocity Less than that of Light,” reprinted in The Principle of Relativity, Dover, New York, 1923.Google Scholar
[16] Lorentz, H. A., The Theory of Electrons (second edition), Dover, New York, 1958. (The Second edition first appeared in 1915.)Google Scholar
[17] Maxwell, G., “The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities,” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. III (eds. G. Feigl and G. Maxwell), University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1962.Google Scholar
[18] Nagel, E., The Structure of Science, Harcourt, Brace, & World, New York, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19] Popper, K. R., The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Science Editions, New York, 1961.Google Scholar
[20] Reichenbach, H., The Philosophy of Space and Time (tr. M. Reichenbach and J. Freund), Dover, New York, 1958.Google Scholar
[21] Rudner, R., Philosophy of Social Science, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1966.Google Scholar
[22] Schaffner, K. F., “Approaches to Reduction,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 34, 1967, pp. 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23] Schaffner, K. F., “The Lorentz Electron Theory and Relativity,” American Journal of Physics (in press).Google Scholar
[24] Schaffner, K. F., Nineteenth Century Aether Theories, Pergamon Press, Oxford (in press).Google Scholar
[25] Schaffner, K. F., “The Watson-Crick Model and Reductionism,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (in press).Google Scholar
[26] Shapere, D., “Notes towards a Post-Positivistic Interpretation of Science,” The Legacy of Logical Positivism for the Philosophy of Science (eds. Achinstein, P. and Barker, S.), Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1969.Google Scholar
[27] ter Haar, D., The Old Quantum Theory, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1967.Google Scholar