Part Three of the Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, London, Ontario, Canada, August 27-September 2, 1975.

SummaryA simple and precise definition is offered of “term t of theory T being T‐theoretical” which can be applied to any formalized theory. The definition is in line with and emends traditional accounts of theoreticity. Its adequacy is demonstrated by application to three examples: exchange economics, classical mechanics and collision mechanics.

In the present paper Cohen's and Lee's theory of social conformity and Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance are first reconstructed according to a revised form of the so-called “structuralist theory-conception” developed by Sneed and Stegmüller with their collaborators. Then the two theories are conceptually correlated in the sense of a technical notion of conceptual correlation which can be shown to be an essential generalization of the theory-relations handled by the structuralist. It will turn out that there is no unique way (...) to connect these theories with each other. However, it is shown that two ontologically and conceptually different theories can be correlated. This in turn gives in principle an opportunity to compare critically these two theories given that the constructed conceptual correlation is sufficiently sound and that the theories are empirically testable to a sufficient extent. (shrink)

11 original. Modifications which I introduced are radical and often far going. In my opinion the Polish text had two main drawbacks. It was overloaded with informal considerations and at the same time formal concepts included in some parts of the book were presented in a too complicated way. Of course one of the motives to revise it was also the fact that much time has passed since I finished writing the Polish version and obviously certain decisions and ideas contained (...) in the first edition seem not quite relevant now. So it is not only the desire to make the exposition clearer but also the reasons of substantial nature which motivated writing a revised version. I do not think it desirable to bother the reader with a detailed discussion of all changes to which the Polish version was subjected and that is why I will confine myself to pointing out only the most significant ones. Explanations concerning logical and set-theoretical notions applied in the book have been shortened as much as possible, in the Polish version one whole chapter was devoted to the discussion of them. (shrink)