The usual completeness theorem for first-order logic is extended in order to allow for a natural incorporation of real analysis. Essentially, this is achieved by building in the set of real numbers into the structures for the language, and by adjusting other semantical notions accordingly. We use many-sorted languages so that the resulting formal systems are general enough for axiomatic treatments of empirical theories without recourse to elements of set theory which are difficult to interprete empirically. Thus we provide a (...) way of applying model theory to empirical theories without tricky detours. Our frame is applied to axiomatizations of three empirical theories: classical mechanics, phenomenological thermodynamics, and exchange economics. (shrink)

Theories in the usual sense, as characterized by a language and a set of theorems in that language ("statement view"), are related to theories in the structuralist sense, in turn characterized by a set of potential models and a subset thereof as models ("non-statement view", J. Sneed, W. Stegmüller). It is shown that reductions of theories in the structuralist sense (that is, functions on structures) give rise to so-called "representations" of theories in the statement sense and vice versa, where representations (...) are understood as functions that map sentences of one theory into another theory. It is argued that commensurability between theories should be based on functions on open formulas and open terms so that reducibility does not necessarily imply commensurability. This is in accordance with a central claim by Stegmüller on the compatibility of reducibility and incommensurability that has recently been challenged by D. Pearce. (shrink)

In this paper, the (possible) role of model theory forstructuralism and structuralist definitions of ``reduction'' arediscussed. Whereas it is somewhat undecisive with respect tothe first point – discussing some pro's and con's ofthe model theoretic approach when compared with a syntacticand a structuralist one – it emphasizes that severalstructuralist definitions of ``reducibility'' do not providegenerally acceptable explications of ``reducibility''. This claimrests on some mathematical results proved in this paper.

In this critical notice, I argue that the semantic view championed by Thompson no logical advantage over the syntactic view of theories, especially in the area of interpretation. Each weakness of the syntactic view has a corresponding weakness in the semantic view. In principle the two are not different in power, but it is sometimes better to adopt one rather than the other, for practical reasons. I agree with Thompson that many issues in the philosophy of biology can be illuminated (...) by the semantic view, but that other things, especially deriving specific prediction, are best understood with the syntactic view. (shrink)