Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Mental terms, theoretical terms, and materialism.James W. Cornman - 1968 - Philosophy of Science 35 (March):45-63.
    Some materialists argue that we can eliminate mental entities such as sensations because, like electrons, they are theoretical entities postulated as parts of scientific explanations, but, unlike electrons, they are unnecessary for such explanations. As Quine says, any explanatory role of mental entities can be played by "correlative physiological states and events instead." But sensations are not postulated theoretical entities. This is shown by proposing definitions of the related terms, 'observation term,' and 'theoretical term,' and then classifying the term 'sensation.' (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Realism.Alan H. Goldman - 1979 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 17 (2):175-192.
    Definitions of stronger and weaker versions of physical realism are offered, The first relating to the existence of physical objects and the second to the independence of their properties. It is argued that recent debates about the commensurability and convergence of scientific theories and the causal theory of reference are irrelevant to the truth of these theses, Although their proponents seem to think them linked. It is then argued that support for realist positions must be inductive. Such support is provided (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Metaphysics, reference and (meta-) theory.C. A. Hooker - 1978 - Metaphilosophy 9 (2):133–149.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • On the metatheoretical nature of Carnap's philosophy.Bryan G. Norton - 1977 - Philosophy of Science 44 (1):65-85.
    Rudolf Carnap defended two quite different critiques of traditional philosophy: in addition to the much discussed verifiability criterion, he also proposed a critique based upon "formalizability." Formalizability rests upon the principle of tolerance plus an acceptance of a linguistic methodology. Standard interpreters of Carnap (e.g., [7] and [8]) assume that the principle of tolerance (and, hence, formalizability) gains its argumentative support from verificationism. Carnap, in fact, kept the two critiques separate and independent. Indeed, verificationism is even, in spirit, inconsistent with (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation