Suchergebnisse

The reductive strategies, such as the deductive-nomological (DN) model of explanation, or the Nagel–Schaffner reduction, have been perceived negatively ever since their first applications in historical inquiry. However, the role of the analysis of inter-theory relations, such as the preservation of success and retrospective rationality, has hardly ever received much attention from historians of science. In this paper, I am exploring the applicability of the analysis of inter-theory relations for the rational reconstruction of the development of science. I demonstrate that the historiography of Anneliese Maier is a good example of a few reductive strategies at play in historical inquiry that do not submit to the same criticism that the synchronic reductive analysis of theories is submitted to.

A central topic both in philosophy of science as well as in the empirical sciences is the reconstruction of the relations between theories. In the past comparisons of theories by means of traditional linguistic methods have proved to be extremely difficult and complicated. In this article the reconstruction of intertheoretical relations based on model-theoretical terms is propagated, as formulated within the structuralist view of theories. The efficiency of a model theoretical based comparison of theories is demonstrated by two theory elements from the social science research program of balance theories: The basic element by Heider and the transitivity theory by Holland and Leinhardt. First of all both theory elements are introduced informally and reconstructed in the structuralist format. On the basis of these reconstructions can be shown, that the Heider theory can be formally reduced to the Holland-Leinhardt theory and that the theory younger in history means an improvement. However, an integration of all balance theoretical elements into a theory net is not possible.

Today's rising interest rates are a warning to Congress: get your fiscal house in order to avoid a crisis.

IN RECENT YEARS THE U.S. CONGRESS HAS MORE AND MORE HANDED OVER TO THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL SCIENCE POLICY. LAKOFF ARGUES THAT AT THIS TIME SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IS SUFFICIENTLY THAT IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT CONGRESS ONCE AGAIN ASSERT CONTROL OVER THE FORMULATION OF U.S. SCIENCE POLICY. AT THE SAME TIME MUST ALLOW THE EXECUTIVE TO MAINTAIN ITS LEADERSHIP ROLE.