Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Two types of successor relations between theories

  • Aufsätze
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

A successor relation between theories T und T1 expresses that T1, the successor of T, has justifiably superseded T. In physics, for instance, Newton's theory of gravitation has superseded Kepler's laws and, in turn, Einstein's theory has become the successor of Newton's. By now there is no agreement on how a general concept of successor relation would have to be construed. In the present paper attention is drawn to two types of such relations, one deductive the other confirmatory. It seems that what most people are looking for is the deductive type of relation. However, a deductive successor relation has to be justified by showing that if it holds then another, confirmatory relation holds, saying roughly that the actual empirical success of the deducing theory is at least as good as the corresponding success of the deduced theory. Under certain restrictions such a justification is given in the paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatur

  1. L. Boltzmann: Populäre Schriften. Leipzig 1905. p. 94f.

  2. E. Nagel: The Meaning of Reduction in the Natural Sciences. In: Science and Civilization. ed. R. C. Stauffer, Madison, Wisc., 1949. 99–145; also in: Philosophy of Science. ed. A. Danto and S. Morgenbesser. Meridian Books 1960. 288–312; p. 301.

  3. K. Popper: Naturgesetze und theoretische Systeme. In: Gesetz und Wirklichkeit. ed. S. Moser, Innsbruck 1949, 43–60; p. 57.

  4. K. Popper: The Rationality of Scientific Revolutions. In: Problems of Scientific Revolutions. ed. R. Harré, Oxford 1975, 72–101; p. 83.

  5. J. G. Kemeny and P. Oppenheim: On Reduction. Philos. Studies 7 (1956) 6–19; also in: Readings in the Philosophy of Science, ed. B. A. Brody, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1970, 307–18; p. 313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. I. Lakatos: Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In: Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. ed. I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, Cambridge 1970, 91–196; p. 116.

  7. J. Sneed: The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Dordrecht 1971. Ch. VII; W. Balzer and J. Sneed: Generalized Net Structures of Empirical Theories. I. Studia Logica 36 (1977) 195–211; II. ibid. 37 (1978) 167–94; C. U. Moulines: Intertheoretic Approximation: The Kepler-Newton Case. Synthese 45 (1980) 387–412; C. U. Moulines: A General Scheme for Intertheoretic Approximation. In: Structure and Approximation in Physical Theories. ed. A. Hartkämper und H.-J. Schmidt. New York 1981, 123–46.

  8. G. Ludwig: Die Grundstrukturen einer physikalischen Theorie. Berlin 1978; esp. § 8. For a comparison of the general views on theories basic to the approaches of the authors mentioned in n. 7 and the one taken by Ludwig see E. Scheibe: A Comparison of Two Recent Views on Theories. In: Structure and Approximation in Physical Theories, ed. A. Hartkämper und H.-J. Schmidt, New York 1981. 197–215.

  9. E. Scheibe: The Approximative Explanation and the Development of Physics. In: Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science IV, ed. P. Suppes et al, Amsterdam 1973, 931–42, —; Die Erklärung der Keplerschen Gesetze durch Newtons Gravitationsgesetz. In: Einheit und Vielheit. Festschrift für C. F. von Weizsäcker. Ed. E. Scheibe und G. Süßmann, Göttingen 1973, 98–118; —; Conditions of Progress and the Comparability of Theories. In: Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos. ed. R. S. Cohen et al., Dordrecht 1976, 547–68; —: Eine Fallstudie zur Grenzfallbeziehung in der Quantenmechanik. In: Grundlagenprobleme der modernen Physik. Festschrift für Peter Mittelstaedt. ed. J. Nitsch et al., Mannheim 1981, 257–69.

  10. This was done by myself already in E. Scheibe: Zum Theorienvergleich in der Physik. In: Physik, Philosophie und Politik. Festschrift für C. F. von Weizsäcker. Ed. K. M. Meyer-Abich. München 1982. 291–309. In this paper also more material can be found concerning the physicists view on the development of their discipline.

  11. There are even attempts to put all the burden of reduction on deduction proper. See R. M. Yoshida: Reduction in the physical sciences. Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1977.

  12. See the papers quoted in n. 8 and in addition: G. Ludwig: Axiomatische Basis einer physikalischen Theorie und theoretische Begriffe. Zeitschr. für allgem. Wissenschaftstheorie XII (1981) 55–74; E. Scheibe: Ein Vergleich der Theoriebegriffe von Sneed und Ludwig. In: Proc. of the 7th International Wittgenstein Symposium 1982 (to appear).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. N. Bourbaki: Elements of Mathematics. Theory of Sets. Paris 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See the papers quoted in n. 12 and E. Scheibe: On the Structure of Physical Theories. In: The Logic and Epistemology of Scientific Change. Ed. I. Niiniluoto and R. Tuomela. Amsterdam 1979. 205–24.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophisches Seminar der Universität, Nikolausberger Weg 9c, D-3400, Göttingen, Germany

    Erhard Scheibe

Authors
  1. Erhard Scheibe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This paper was presented to the Conference on the Foundations of Logic at the University of Waterloo (Ontario), April 16–18, 1982.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scheibe, E. Two types of successor relations between theories. Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 14, 68–80 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01801175

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01801175

Keywords

Search

Navigation