more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
A uniquely realised theory is, other things being equal, certainly more satisfactory than a multiply realised theory. We should insist on unique realisation as a standard of correctness unless it is a standard too high to be met.
Gist of Idea
It is better to have one realisation of a theory than many - but it may not always be possible
Source
David Lewis (How to Define Theoretical Terms [1970], III)
Book Ref
Lewis,David: 'Philosophical Papers Vol.1' [OUP 1983], p.83
A Reaction
The point is that rewriting a theory as Ramsey sentences just says there is at least one realisation, and so it doesn't meet the highest standards for scientific theories. The influence of set-theoretic model theory is obvious in this approach.
Related Idea
Idea 15528 A Ramsey sentence just asserts that a theory can be realised, without saying by what [Lewis]
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] |