Representation models as devices for scientific theory applications vs. the semantic view of scientific theories : the case of models of the nuclear structure
Analyses of the nature and structure of scientific theories have predominantly focused on formalisation. The Received View of scientific theories considers theories as axiomatised sets of sentences. In Hilbert-style formalisation theories are considered formal axiomatic calculi to which interpretation is supplied by a set of correspondence rules. The Received View has long been abandoned. The Semantic View of scientific theories also considers theories as formal systems. In the Semantic conception, a theory is identified with the class of intended models of the formal language, if the theory were to be given such linguistic form. The proponents of the Semantic View, however, hold that this class of models can be directly defined without recourse to a formal language. Just like its predecessor, the Semantic View is also not free of untenable implications. The uniting feature of the arguments m this work is the topic of theoretical representation of phenomena. The Semantic View implies that theoretical representation conies about by the use of some model, which belongs to the class that constitutes the theory. However, this is not what we see when we scrutinise the features of actual representation models in
Portides, Demetris Panayiotis
Formalisation; Received view
Representation models as devices for scientific theory applications vs. the semantic view of scientific theories : the case of models of the nuclear structure. Analyses of the nature and structure of scientific theories have predominantly focused on formalisation. The Received View of scientific theories considers theories as axiomatised sets of sentences. In Hilbert-style formalisation theories are considered formal axiomatic calculi to which interpretation is supplied by a set of correspondence rules. The Received View has long been abandoned. The Semantic View of scientific theories also considers theories as formal systems. In the Semantic conception, a theory is identified with the class of intended models of the formal language, if the theory were to be given such linguistic form. The proponents of the Semantic View, however, hold that this class of models can be directly defined without recourse to a formal language. Just like its predecessor, the Semantic View is also not free of untenable implications. The uniting feature of the arguments m this work is the topic of theoretical representation of phenomena. The Semantic View implies that theoretical representation conies about by the use of some model, which belongs to the class that constitutes the theory. However, this is not what we see when we scrutinise the features of actual representation models in
representation model device scientific_theory application semantic view scientific_theory case model nuclear structure analyses nature structure scientific_theory predominantly_focus formalisation received view scientific_theory considers theory set sentence style formalisation theory consider formal axiomatic calculus interpretation supply set correspondence rule received view long abandon semantic view scientific_theory also_consider theory formal system semantic conception theory identify class intend model formal_language theory give linguistic_form proponent semantic view however hold class model directly define without recourse formal_language like predecessor semantic view also free untenable implication feature argument work topic theoretical representation phenomenon semantic view imply theoretical representation use model belong class constitutes theory however see scrutinise feature actual representation model