Skip to main content
Log in

Embeddability, syntax, and semantics in accounts of scientific theories

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recently several philosophers of science have proposed what has come to be known as the semantic account of scientific theories. It is presented as an improvement on the positivist account, which is now called the syntactic account of scientific theories. Bas van Fraassen claims that the syntactic account does not give a satisfactory definition of “empirical adequacy” and “empirical equivalence”. He contends that his own semantic account does define these notations acceptably, through the concept of “embeddability”, a concept which he claims cannot be defined syntactically. Here, I define a syntactic relation which corresponds to the semantic relation of “embeddability”. I suggest that the critical differences between the positivist account and van Fraassen's account have nothing to do with the distinction between semantics and syntax.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bell, John and MohséMachover (1977), A Course in Mathematical Logic. New York: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bouvère, Karel (1965), “Synonymous theories”. In The Theory of Models. Edited by J. W. Addison, Leon Henkin, and Alfred Tarski. New York: North-Holland. Pages 402–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, L. E. (1981), An Outline of Projective Geometry. New York: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartshorne, R. (1967), Foundations of Projective Geometry. New York: W. A. Benjamin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabin, Michael O. (1977), “Decidable theories”. In Handbook of Mathematical Logic. Edited by Jon Barwise. New York: North-Holland. Pages 595–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfield, Joseph R. (1967), Mathematical Logic. London: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sneed, Joseph (1971), The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmüller, Wolfgang (1976), The Structure and Dynamics of Theories. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppe, F. (1974), The Structure of Scientific Theories. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppes, Patrick (1967), “What is a scientific theory?”. In Philosophy of Science Today. Edited by Sidney Morgenbesser. New York: Basic Books. Pages 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Paul (1983), “The structure of evolutionary theory: a semantic approach”, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 14: 215–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Fraassen, Bas C. (1970), “On the extension of Beth's semantics of physical theories”, Philosophy of Science 37: 325–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Fraassen, Bas C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turney, P. Embeddability, syntax, and semantics in accounts of scientific theories. J Philos Logic 19, 429–451 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00263319

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00263319

Keywords

Navigation