On 12/13/2016 2:43 PM, Thomas903 wrote:
I wanted to comment on statements made last night about the meaning of law-theory-hypothesis.
I wasn't attempting to state a definitive analysis of scientific terminology. I was making the point that logicians use the word 'theory' in a formal sense that can be defined syntactically (in terms of a proof that consists of symbol pushing).
There are a lot of scientists, so I won't claim that all agree with a single definition. But when I see the term "law" being used by scientists (e.g., Kepler's Law), it is normally used to describe a physical-empirical regularity.
I agree. Scientists have been using the words 'hypothesis', 'theory', and 'law' to express informal distinctions that are based on empirical data about the world and processes in it. That involves Peirce's logic of abduction: cycles of observation, induction, abduction, deduction (AKA prediction), experiment (testing), and repeat. It's true that logicians use the term 'entailment' instead of 'deduction' as a kind of "semantics" because it uses model- theoretic methods. But those models are Gedanken worlds, whose elements and interactions are independent of observation, experiment, or testing upon anything in the physical world. Note that Peirce did not use the word 'semantics'. That word was introduced into analytic philosophy by Charles Morris's misunderstanding of Peirce. Carnap loved that word because it gave his nominalism a thin veneer of meaning. It enabled him to define modality in terms of Gedanken worlds without having to get his hands dirty by grubbing around in the real world.
A [scientific] theory is the culmination of observation and measurement, hypothesis construction, empirical testing, debate and discussion. As such, a theory is an intellectual-capital good developed over time. There is no logical activity known as "deduction" without first developing a "theoretical model" that, when combined with relevant premises, generates syllogisms (predictions, explanations) relating to a class of phenomena.
Yes. That is consistent with Peirce's logic of abduction. John
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
