Earlier in this century, many philosophers of science (for example, Rudolf Carnap) drew a fairly sharp distinction between theory and observation, between theoretical terms like 'mass' and 'electron', and observation terms like 'measures three meters in length' and 'is _2??? Celsius'. By simply looking at our instruments we can ascertain what numbers our measurements yield. Creatures like mass are different: we determine mass by calculation; we never directly observe a mass. Nor an electron: this term is introduced in order ...
Read More
Earlier in this century, many philosophers of science (for example, Rudolf Carnap) drew a fairly sharp distinction between theory and observation, between theoretical terms like 'mass' and 'electron', and observation terms like 'measures three meters in length' and 'is _2??? Celsius'. By simply looking at our instruments we can ascertain what numbers our measurements yield. Creatures like mass are different: we determine mass by calculation; we never directly observe a mass. Nor an electron: this term is introduced in order to explain what we observe. This (once standard) distinction between theory and observation was eventually found to be wanting. First, if the distinction holds, it is difficult to see what can characterize the relationship between theory :md observation. How can theoretical terms explain that which is itself in no way theorized? The second point leads out of the first: are not the instruments that provide us with observational material themselves creatures of theory? Is it really possible to have an observation language that is entirely barren of theory? The theory-Iadenness of observation languages is now an accept ed feature of the logic of science. Many regard such dependence of observation on theory as a virtue. If our instruments of observation do not derive their meaning from theories, whence comes that meaning? Surely - in science - we have nothing else but theories to tell us what to try to observe.
Read Less
Add this copy of The Completeness of Scientific Theories: on the to cart. $67.21, good condition, Sold by Bonita rated 4.0 out of 5 stars, ships from Newport Coast, CA, UNITED STATES, published 2012 by Springer.
Add this copy of The Completeness of Scientific Theories: On the to cart. $168.69, new condition, Sold by Ingram Customer Returns Center rated 5.0 out of 5 stars, ships from NV, USA, published 2012 by Springer.
Add this copy of The Completeness of Scientific Theories to cart. $169.28, new condition, Sold by Ria Christie Books rated 5.0 out of 5 stars, ships from Uxbridge, MIDDLESEX, UNITED KINGDOM, published 2012 by Springer.
Add this copy of The Completeness of Scientific Theories: on the to cart. $134.00, very good condition, Sold by BookHouse On-Line rated 5.0 out of 5 stars, ships from Minneapolis, MN, UNITED STATES, published 1993 by Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Choose your shipping method in Checkout. Costs may vary based on destination.
Seller's Description:
Very Good in Very Good jacket. Size: 9x6x1; Kluwer, 1994; no additional printings indicated; xviii, 278pp. Binding is tight, sturdy, and square; very minor wear to edges of maroon cloth boards, silver foil titling remains bright and bold; text also very good. Unclipped dust jacket in VG condition, arrives wrapped in protective mylar. Ships from Dinkytown in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Add this copy of The Completeness of Scientific Theories: On the to cart. $168.69, new condition, Sold by Ingram Customer Returns Center rated 5.0 out of 5 stars, ships from NV, USA, published 1993 by Springer.
Add this copy of The Completeness of Scientific Theories to cart. $170.73, new condition, Sold by Ria Christie Books rated 5.0 out of 5 stars, ships from Uxbridge, MIDDLESEX, UNITED KINGDOM, published 1993 by Springer.
Add this copy of The Completeness of Scientific Theories to cart. $209.15, new condition, Sold by Media Smart rated 4.0 out of 5 stars, ships from Hawthorne, CA, UNITED STATES, published 1993 by Springer.
All Editions of The Completeness of Scientific Theories: On the Derivation of Empirical Indicators within a Theoretical Framework: The Case of Physical Geometry
