more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
I contend that there is a general method for defining newly introduced terms in a scientific theory, one which uses only the old terms we understood beforehand.
Gist of Idea
There is a method for defining new scientific terms just using the terms we already understand
Source
David Lewis (How to Define Theoretical Terms [1970], Intro)
Book Ref
Lewis,David: 'Philosophical Papers Vol.1' [OUP 1983], p.78
A Reaction
Lewis is game is to provide bridge laws for a reductive account of nature, without having to introduce something entirely new to achieve it. The idea of bridge laws in scientific theory is less in favour these days.
6894 | Mental terms can be replaced in a sentence by a variable and an existential quantifier [Ramsey] |
15526 | There is a method for defining new scientific terms just using the terms we already understand [Lewis] |
15528 | A Ramsey sentence just asserts that a theory can be realised, without saying by what [Lewis] |
15529 | It is better to have one realisation of a theory than many - but it may not always be possible [Lewis] |
15531 | The Ramsey sentence of a theory says that it has at least one realisation [Lewis] |
14982 | If I used Ramsey sentences to eliminate fundamentality from my theory, that would be a real loss [Sider] |
14921 | The Ramsey-sentence approach preserves observations, but eliminates unobservables [Ladyman/Ross] |
14922 | The Ramsey sentence describes theoretical entities; it skips reference, but doesn't eliminate it [Ladyman/Ross] |