The problem analysed in this paper is whether we can gain knowledge by using valid inferences, and how we can explain this process from a model-theoretic perspective. According to the paradox of inference (Cohen & Nagel 1936/1998, 173), it is logically impossible for an inference to be both valid and its conclusion to possess novelty with respect to the premises. I argue in this paper that valid inference has an epistemic significance, i.e., it can be used by an agent to (...) enlarge his knowledge, and this significance can be accounted in model-theoretic terms. I will argue first that the paradox is based on an equivocation, namely, it arises because logical containment, i.e., logical implication, is identified with epistemological containment, i.e., the knowledge of the premises entails the knowledge of the conclusion. Second, I will argue that a truth-conditional theory of meaning has the necessary resources to explain the epistemic significance of valid inferences. I will explain this epistemic significance starting from Carnap’s semantic theory of meaning and Tarski’s notion of satisfaction. In this way I will counter (Prawitz 2012b)’s claim that a truth-conditional theory of meaning is not able to account the legitimacy of valid inferences, i.e., their epistemic significance. (shrink)

Much speculation on the sources of Duhem's historical interests fails to account for the major shifts in these interests: neither his belief in the continuous development of physics nor his Catholicism, when his Church was encouraging the study of generally Aristotelian scholastic thought, led to any interest in mediaeval science before 1904. Equally, his own claim that he was merely testing his views on the nature of physical theory is easily squared only with earlier work with no trace of mediaeval (...) science. Behind this discontinuity lies a major crisis. Though not a positivist, Duhem had based all his work on assumptions acceptable to positivists. One of these, the sterility of the Middle Ages, was refuted by his chance discovery of evidence of genuine mediaeval science in the autumn of 1903, but that left the doctrine of scholastic sterility intact. (shrink)

(2005). Was Pierre Duhem a Precursor of Postmodernism? Angelaki: Vol. 10, continental philosophy and the sciences the french tradition issue editor: andrew aitken, pp. 27-38.

The publication of this volume appears to be the most recent in a group of works whose appearance marks renewed interest in Duhem. Over the past ten years, attention has been focused on Duhem's life (Jaki 1984), his physics (Jaki 1984; Nye 1986, 208–23), his philosophy of science (Jaki 1984, chap. 9; Paul 1979, chap. 5; Ariew 1984),' and his history of science (Jaki 1984, chap. 10; Martin 1976). But the significance of this translation is that - leaving asideTo Save (...) the Phenomena– for the first time we have a partial translation into English of one of the two great historical works that revitalized the study of medieval science. (shrink)

Die Korrespondenz der beiden Physiker und Wissenschaftshistoriker Ernst Mach und Pierre Duhem ist weitgehend, vielleicht mit Ausnahme nur eines Briefes, erhalten. Neben der Dokumentation dieser historischen Zeugnisse setzt sich der Autor in diesem Aufsatz zum Ziel, die jeweiligen Motive, die Mach resp. Duhem zur Beschäftigung mit Wissenschaftsgeschichte führten und die damit verbundenen Modelle der Wissenschaftsgeschichtsentwicklung beider gegeneinander abzugrenzen. Dazu wurden insb. die in der bisher vorliegenden Sekundärliteratur zu Mach und Duhem überhaupt nicht berücksichtigte Buchbesprechung der Machschen Mechanik durch Duhem sowie (...) die ergänzenden Bemerkungen zu Duhem in späteren Auflagen der Werke und in der Korrespondenz Machs herangezogen, die eine recht detaillierte wechselseitige Kritik ihrer Methodik beinhalten. Den Abschluß meiner Betrachtungen bildet der Versuch einer Sondierung dessen, was in Duhems resp. Machs historischen Betrachtungsweisen über die nicht in Frage stehende Bedeutung als Meilensteine der Wissenschaftsgeschichtsschreibung hinaus noch heute von Relevanz ist.The preserved part of the hitherto unpublished Duhem-Mach correspondence, kept in the Archives de l'Académie des Sciences, Paris, and in the Ernst Mach Institut of the Fraunhofer Society, Freiburg im Breisgau, is documented and commented upon. Biographical, methodological, and philosophical analogies and differences between the points of view of Pierre Duhem and Ernst Mach are discussed, and a critical evaluation is given of their impact as historians of science. (shrink)

Pierre Duhem rejected unambiguously the strong version of realism that he believed was held by Copernicus. In fact, although Copernicus believed that his theory was clearly superior to Ptolemy's, he seems to have recognized that his theory was at best only approximately true. Accordingly, he recognized that his arguments were not demonstrative in the traditional sense but probable and persuasive. Duhem regarded even the belief in probably true explanations as misguided. Nevertheless, Duhem recognized that, even if metaphysical intuition does not (...) enter into the content of physical theories, the rejection of hypotheses could be explained only by appeal to common sense. Hence, Duhem held a qualified instrumentalism according to which physical theories are not realist, but the terms of ordinary experience and empirical laws are realist. Accordingly, Duhem rejected the complete subordination of science to philosophy as well as the complete separation of science from philosophy. Duhem's history of cosmological doctrines reflects his belief in the origin of the subordination of science to philosophy and of the struggle to achieve the proper balance without being driven to the opposite extreme of their complete separation. (shrink)

No presente artigo, procuramos mostrar, por intermédio de numerosos exemplos, que a distinção lógica operada por Pierre Duhem entre a física e a metafísica não impossibilita que, do ponto de vista histórico, o autor reconheça a existência de um entrosamento profícuo a cingir as duas áreas do saber. Distinguimos três níveis possíveis de interação entre a física e a metafísica, porque acreditamos que ele aceita (a) que o físico trabalha constantemente movido por ambições metafísicas não autorizadas pela rigorosa lógica, (b) (...) que os sistemas metafísicos contribuíram para muitos dos progressos das teorias físicas, em especial, para o nascimento da ciência moderna e (c) que podemos identificar tradições metafísicas de pesquisa duradouras que se mostraram mais férteis do que algumas tradições positivas. In this article, we aim to show, by means of several examples, that Pierre Duhem's logical distinction operated by Pierre Duhem between physics and metaphysics does not prevent him, from a historical perspective, recognizing that there can be a fruitful interplay between the two fields of knowledge. We distinguish three possible levels of interaction that we believe Duhem accepts between physics and metaphysics: (a) that the physicist works constantly moved by metaphysical ambitions not authorized by rigorous logic; (b) that the metaphysical systems have contributed to the progress of many physical theories and, especially, to the birth of modern science, and; (c) that we can identify long-lasting metaphysical traditions of research which have shown themselves to be more fertile than the positivist traditions. (shrink)

Duhem's discussion of physical theories as natural classifications is neither antithetical nor incidental to the main thrust of his philosophy of science. Contrary to what is often supposed, Duhem does not argue that theories are better thought of as economically organizing empirical laws than as providing information concerning the nature of the world. What he is primarily concerned with is the character and justification of the scientific method, not the logical status of theoretical entities. The crucial point to notice is (...) that he took the principle of the autonomy of physics to be of paramount importance and he developed the conception of natural classification in opposition to accounts of physical theories that contravened it. (shrink)