Taking a cue from remarks Thomas Kuhn makes in 1990 about the historical turn in philosophy of science, I examine the history of history and philosophy of science within parts of the British philosophical context in the 1950s and early 1960s. During this time, ordinary language philosophy's influence was at its peak. I argue that the ordinary language philosophers' methodological recommendation to analyze actual linguistic practice influences several prominent criticisms of the deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation and that these criticisms (...) relate to the historical turn in philosophy of science. To show these connections, I primarily examine the work of Stephen Toulmin, who taught at Oxford from 1949 to 1954, and Michael Scriven, who completed a dissertation on explanation under Gilbert Ryle and R.B. Braithwaite in 1956. I also consider Mary Hesse's appeal to an ordinary language-influenced account of meaning in her account of the role of models and analogies in scientific reasoning, and W.H. Watson's Wittgensteinian philosophy of science, an early influence on Toulmin. I think there are two upshots to my historical sketch. First, it fills out details of the move away from logical positivism to more historical- and practice-focused philosophies of science. Second, questions about linguistic meaning and the proper targets and aims of philosophical analysis are part and parcel of the historical turn, as well as its reception. Looking at the philosophical background during which so-called linguistic philosophers also had a hand in bringing these questions to prominence helps us understand why. (shrink)

When discrepancies are discovered between the outcomes of different measurement procedures, two sorts of explanation are open to scientists. Either some of the outcomes are inaccurate or the procedures are not measuring the same quantity. I argue that, due to the possibility of systematic error, the choice between and is underdetermined in principle by any possible evidence. Consequently, foundationalist criteria of quantity individuation are either empty or circular. I propose a coherentist, model-based account of measurement that avoids the underdetermination problem, (...) and use this account to explain how scientists individuate quantities in practice. (shrink)

Measurement is widely applied because its results are assumed to be more reliable than opinions and guesses, but this reliability is sometimes justified in a stereotyped way. After a critical analysis of such stereotypes, a structural characterization of measurement is proposed, as partly empirical and partly theoretical process, by showing that it is in fact the structure of the process that guarantees the reliability of its results. On this basis the role and the structure of background knowledge in measurement and (...) the justification of the conditions of object-relatedness ("objectivity") and subject-independence ("intersubjectivity") of measurement are specifically discussed. (shrink)

It has become customary to locate the origins of modern measurement theory in the works of Helmholtz and Hölder. If by ‘modern measurement theory’ is meant the representational theory, then this may not be an accurate assessment. Both Helmholtz and Hölder present theories of measurement which are closely related to the classical conception of measurement. Indeed, Hölder can be interpreted as bringing this conception to fulfilment in a synthesis of Euclid, Newton, and Dedekind. The first explicitly representational theory appears to (...) have been Russell's. He rejected the traditional concept of quantity and its connection to number, making the use of number in quantitative science problematical. He solved the problem via representationalism. (shrink)

It is with no feigned modesty that I acknowledge, as a limited and superficial student of philosophy, the honour you have done me by your invitation to deliver the Manson Lecture. But if the honour is undeserved, it is by fortuitous circumstance the more appreciated. Dr. Manson was a family doctor in Warrington, Lancs., with whom I was privileged to have close professional associations. He was a man of many parts who regarded the isolation of medicine from philosophy as an (...) unintelligible and lamentable phenomenon of our time. He wished to see philosophy restored to its earlier and rightful basic rôle in medical education. He recognized that medicine and, indeed, the cognate basic sciences were occupying themselves almost exclusively with so rapidly accelerating an accumulation of facts, that little time remained for reflection and interpretation, and for pondering on the place of medicine in, and its contribution to, the general corpus of knowledge. And he was especially interested in the topic which I have chosen for this commemorative lecture, for he recognized, and translated into practice, the dictum that “No disease is wholly physical, and none wholly mental.” He saw in his patient the “whole” man, not a summation of such isolates as body, mind, environment, and family. (shrink)

The paper, analyses the role of measurable concepts in deductive explanation. It is shown that such concepts are, although imprecise in a defined sense, exact in that neutral candidates to them do not arise. An analysis is given of the way in which imprecision is related to generalisation, and it is shown how imprecise concepts are incorporated in testable deductive explanations.

This paper defends a realist interpretation of theories and a modest realism concerning the existence of quantities as providing the best account both of the logic of quantity concepts and of scientific measurement practices. Various operationist analyses of measurement are shown to be inadequate accounts of measurement practices used by scientists. We argue, furthermore, that appeals to implicit definitions to provide meaning for theoretical terms over and above operational definitions fail because implicit definitions cannot generate the requisite descriptive content. The (...) special case of establishing a temperature scale is examined to show that nonrealist accounts fail to provide insight into the theoretical connections that scientific laws postulate to hold among quantities. (shrink)

The topic of my dissertation is the hedonic calculus. The hedonic calculus presupposes that pleasure and pain come in amounts amenable to addition, subtraction, and aggregation operations. These operations are ones that utilitarianism and related normative ethical theories treat as central to moral phenomena. The first chapter is an introduction to the problem--in it, I explain what the hedonic calculus is, why it is important, and why it has recently come under disfavor. The second chapter explores the nature of hedonic (...) phenomena, arguing that pleasure and pain are propositional attitudes; they are not feelings or feeling-tones, nor are they fundamentally a matter of desire or motivation. The third and fourth chapters concern the nature of quantitative phenomena. I argue that quantities are determinate properties whose determinables enter into greater-than, less-than, or equal-to relationships that are homomorphic with the structure of the real number line. These structures include the presence of a unique order; the possibility of equal intervals; and a natural, non-arbitrary zero point. The fifth chapter is a defense of the thesis that there are exactly three relations of quantitative comparison from a recent attack. I argue that apparent instances of being on a par are in fact instances of vagueness or complexity and do not threaten the truth of the trichotomy thesis. The sixth chapter addresses arguments that pleasure and pain fail to meet these formal conditions. One argument stems from the observation that pleasures and pains are essentially transient and ephemeral. Another argument proceeds from the observation that interpersonal comparisons of pleasure and pain appear to be impossible. A third, closely related to the first two, argues that pleasure and pain are too heterogeneous to be quantitative. A final argument holds that, for a variety of reasons, the various mathematical operations constitutive of quantitativeness are not applicable to pleasure or pain. I argue that each argument suffers from at least one fatal flaw. Some arguments crucially involve a failure to distinguish between the existence of a quantity and our ability to perform reliable measurements of it. Others involve false analogies between hedonic and other sorts of phenomena. The seventh chapter addresses arguments in favor of the legitimacy of the calculus. Many philosophers, such as Bentham, Mill, Ross, and Plato, seem to assume, without any serious argument, that pleasure and pain are quantitative. Others attempt to argue that, for example, two people enjoying something must involve more pleasure than if just one person were enjoying it. A third type of argument rests on the claim that it is sometimes rational to be indifferent between a longer lasting, less intense episode of pleasure and a more intense but shorter episode. This suggests that since duration is clearly quantitative, intensity must be, too, because if it were not, there could be no equivalence between the brief but intense and the lengthy but mellow episodes. Several of these arguments are unsound or question-begging. Finally, I present an argument in favor of the hedonic calculus that I endorse, along with possible objections and my replies. I begin by acknowledging the central point of the "hedonic trade-offs" argument, and then proceed, via reductio, by pointing out the various absurd or unpalatable consequences of the denial of the thesis that pleasure and pain are quantitative. (shrink)

In evaluating science, philosophers tends to focus on general laws and on their truth. I urge a shift in focus to the reliability of the panoply of outputs science produces and in tandem, from the general to the particular. Here I give five arguments to support this, including many, many scientific outputs, which must be supposed reliable if we are to warrant our general principles, aren’t truth-apt; and reliability invites the crucial question, ‘Reliable for what?’ Getting clear the particular purpose (...) is essential for effective action and just evaluation. (shrink)

The thesis that numbers are ratios of quantities has recently been advanced by a number of philosophers. While adequate as a definition of the natural numbers, it is not clear that this view suffices for our understanding of the reals. These require continuous quantity and relative to any such quantity an infinite number of additive relations exist. Hence, for any two magnitudes of a continuous quantity there exists no unique ratio. This problem is overcome by defining ratios, and hence real (...) numbers, as binary relations between infinite standard sequences. This definition leads smoothly into a new definition of measurement consonant with the traditional view of measurement as the discovery or estimation of numerical relations. The traditional view is further strengthened by allowing that the additive relations internal to a quantity are distinct from relations observed in the behaviour of objects manifesting quantities. In this way the traditional theory can accommodate the theory of conjoint measurement. This is worth doing because the traditional theory has one great strength lacked by its rivals: measurement statements and quantitative laws are able to be understood literally. 1 This paper was completed in 1990-1. while the author was a visiting scholar at the Irvine Research Unit in Mathematical Behavioral Sciences. University of California. Irvine. The author wishes to thank the Director. Professor R. D. Luce, for the generous provision of space and facilities within the Unit and for his critical comments upon some of the ideas expressed herein: Professor L. Narens. for his trenchant criticisms: and the University of Sydney, for granting Special Study Leave and financial assistance to make the visit possible. (shrink)

Die Wissenschaftstheorie hat sich in der Vergangenheit hauptsächlich mit dem Aufbau und der Analyse wissenschaftlicher Theorien und den logischen Problemen in ihrem eigenen Gebiet beschäftigt, während Probleme der Wissenschaftspraxis, hier vor allem die theoretischen Grundlagen des Messens, nur am Rande oder gar nicht behandelt wurden. Dies ist insofern bemerkenswert, weil die Messung das wichtigste erfahrungswissenschaftliche Hilfsmittel zur Gewinnung von Erkenntnis darstellt. Beim Messen erfolgt der wichtige Übergang vom Empirischen zum Formalen, indem die empirisch vorliegende Intensität einer Meßgröße durch eine mathematische (...) Größe beschrieben und damit überhaupt erst die Voraussetzung für eine erfahrungswissenschaftliche Theorie geschaffen wird. Die vorliegende Meßtheorie ist in Meßprozeßtheorie, Metrisierungstheorie und Fehlertheorie gegliedert. Die Meßprozeßtheorie behandelt die Vorgänge zwischen Meßobjekt und Meßgerät, die Metrisierungstheorie die Darstellung der empirischen Größe als formale und die Fehlertheorie die Schätzung des gesuchten wahren Wertes aus mehreren fehlerbehafteten gleichwertigen Meßwerten. Der Schätzwert ist das Endergebnis einer Messung. Ziel der Arbeit ist es, die Meßtheorie aus dem engen Kreis der Metrisierungs- bzw. Skalentheorie herauszulösen und auf die häufig übersehenen notwendigen Bedingungen einer Messung aufmerksam zu machen. (shrink)