|
15282
|
Facts should be deducible from the theory and initial conditions, and prefer the simpler theory [Osiander, by Harré/Madden]
|
|
Full Idea:
The two positivist criteria for a scientific theory are that the facts must be deducible from the theory together with initial conditions, and if there is more than one theory the simplest must be chosen.
|
|
From:
report of Andreas Osiander (Preface to 'De Revolutionibus' [1543]) by Harré,R./Madden,E.H. - Causal Powers 7.I
|
|
A reaction:
Harré and Madden cite this as a famous early statement of positivism. It seems to combine Hempel and Lewis very concisely. Wrong, of course. It does not, though, appear to mention 'laws'.
|
|
16975
|
Essences are used to explain natural kinds, modality, and causal powers [Tahko]
|
|
Full Idea:
Essences are supposed to do a lot of explanatory work: natural kinds can be identified in terms of their essences, metaphysical modality can be reduced to essence, the causal power of objects can be explained with the help of essence.
|
|
From:
Tuomas E. Tahko (The Epistemology of Essence (draft) [2013], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
Natural kinds and modality are OK with me, but I'm dubious about the third one. If an essence explains something's causal powers, I have no idea what an essence might be. Essence are largely characterised in terms of causal powers.
|
|
16977
|
If essence is modal and laws are necessary, essentialist knowledge is found by scientists [Tahko]
|
|
Full Idea:
If essence is conceived in terms of modality and the laws of nature are metaphysically necessary, it seems that the laws of nature constitute essentialist knowledge, so the discovery of essences is mostly due to scientists.
|
|
From:
Tuomas E. Tahko (The Epistemology of Essence (draft) [2013], 2.1)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems muddled to me. The idea that the laws themselves are essences is way off target. No one thinks all knowledge of necessities is essentialist. Mumford, for example, doesn't even believe in laws.
|