On the nature of scientific laws and theories

Ist der Unterschied zwischen wissenschaftlichen Gesetzen und Theorien ein qualitativer oder lediglich von quantitativer Art? Der Autor versucht zu zeigen, daß Gesetze und Theorien fundamental verschieden sind und daß die Kenntnis ihrer verschiedenen Natur notwendig für ein richtiges Wissenschaftsverständnis ist. Aus seiner Sicht sind Theorien geistigeKonstruktionen mit dem Ziel,kausale Erklärungen von empirischen Gesetzen zu geben, während diese Gesetze auf der Grundlage von Messungenentdeckt werden und dieTatsachen der Wissenschaft konstituieren. Erkenntnistheoretisch sind daher Theorien und (der Ausdruck der) Gesetze auf verschiedenen Ebenen anzusiedeln: während GesetzeWissen liefern, liefern TheorienVerstehen. Der Kern der Theorien besteht ausModellen, die idealisierte Abstraktionen aus Zustandsarten darstellen. Theoretische Modelle konstituierenOntologien, die kausale Mechanismen aufzeigen. SolcheOntologien betreffen den Bedeutungsaspekt (real aspect) des Gegenstandsbereichs, auf den die Theorie angewendet wird, während empirische Gesetze den Ausdrucksaspekt (nominal aspect) des gleichen Gegenstandsbereichs betreffen. Theorien erklären Gesetze, indem sie zeigen, wie der Ausdrucksaspekt lediglich der natürliche Ausdruck der Auswirkungen der Kausalmechanismen im Bedeutungsaspekt sind.     

Approximative truth of fact-statements,laws, and theories

Summary The paper is a sketch of a conception of approximative truth (or verisimilitude). The concepts of relative error, and degree of inadequacy are introduced. By means of them the concept of truth-content of quantitative facts-statements, laws and theories is defined. Laws and theories accepted in science have a high truth-content, i.e. they are approximately true.     

Principles,laws, theories and the metaphysics of science

In this paper an outline of a metaphysical conception of modern science is presented in which a fundamental distinction is drawn between scientific principles, laws and theories. On this view, ontologicalprinciples, rather than e.g. empirical data, constitute the core of science. The most fundamental of these principles are three in number, being, more particularly (A) the principle of the uniformity of nature, (B) the principle of the perpetuity of substance, and (C) the principle of causality.These three principles set basic constraints on the methodology of both empirical and theoretical science. The uniformity principle is central to the empirical aspect of science, suggesting a methodology consisting in the attempt to discover empiricallaws, while the causality principle is central to the theoretical aspect of science, suggesting the postulation of scientifictheories capable of indicating the causal basis of the laws. And the perpetuity principle functions so as to form a bridge between the theories and the laws.By distinguishing between principles, laws and theories in this way, a dimension is added to the analysis of modern science which allows for a more realistic account of its nature.     

Understanding intergroup relations through the lens of implicit theories (mindsets) of malleability

This review argues that implicit theories of malleability are essential constructs for the study of intergroup dynamics. As one of people's core meaning‐making tools, mindsets about malleability shed light on the mechanisms behind perceivers' tendency to stereotype and feel prejudiced towards targets, as well as on the mechanisms underlying targets' ability to shield against, and potentially confront, bias. In addition to illuminating cross‐group interaction dynamics between individuals, mindsets contribute to explaining the harmful processes at play in real‐world protracted conflicts and suggest interventions that may help lay the ground for peace processes. This review also aims to highlight areas of research that remain open for further investigation or that have been overlooked to date. We argue that research integrating mindsets and intergroup relations will advance our understanding of intergroup dynamics, as well as possibly offering insights on how to improve them, and that this approach will also further the study of lay theories of malleability.     

Synthesis of autonomous robots through evolution

Evolutionary robotics is the attempt to develop robots through a self-organized process based on artificial evolution. This approach stresses the importance of the study of systems that have a body and that are situated in a physical environment, and which autonomously develop their own skills in close interaction with the environment. In this review we briefly illustrate the method and the main concept of evolutionary robotics, and examine the most significant contribution in this area. We also discuss some of the contributions that this research area is making to the foundational debate in cognitive science.     

Conditional theories

This paper introduces conditional logic, that is, a variant of free logic where the existence condition of a function is defined by a formula of the formal language. Syntax and semantics are developed. A completeness theorem is given.     

The laws of modality

Philosophical Studies - Nomic realists have traditionally put laws to work within a theory of natural modality, in order to provide a metaphysical source for causal necessitation, counterfactuals,...     

Temporally oriented laws

A system whose expected state changes with time cannot have both a forward-directed translationally invariant probabilistic law and a backward-directed translationally invariant law. When faced with this choice, science seems to favor the former. An asymmetry between cause and effect may help to explain why temporally oriented laws are usually forward-directed.My thanks to Martin Barrett, James Crow, Carter Denniston, Ellery Eells, Malcolm Forster, Richard Lewontin, and the anonymous referees of this journal for useful comments.     

Realism about laws

This paper explores the idea that laws express relationships between properties or universals as defended in Michael Tooley's recent book Causation: A Realist Approach. I suggest that the most plausible version of realism will take a different form than that advocated by Tooley. According to this alternative, laws are grounded in facts about the capacities and powers of particular systems, rather than facts about relations between universals. The notion of lawfulness is linked to the notion of invariance, rather than to the metaphysical notion of a necessary connection.     

An evaluation of three different theories of metaphor production through the use of an intentional category mistake procedure

Three current theories of metaphor production, those of atribute matching, analogical reasoning, and Gestalt perceptual processing, were tested by asking subjects to compare famous people with various categories. Three sets of instructions were devised, each reflecting one of the major theories. Results showed that while subjects could make comparisons under all conditions, they found it significantly easier to work with Gestalt instructions than with either of the other two. Gestalt instructions also produced more novel metaphoric comparisons, with such responses judged to be no less apt than statistically more conventional comparisons. Similar results did not apply to metaphoric comparisons produced under the remaining two instructional conditions where statistically novel comparisons were judged to be less apt than their more conventional counterparts. A second study was run to control for possible demand property differences among the various instructional conditions. Even with these additional controls, results of the second study replicated all major findings reported in Experiment I. Implications of these findings for the production of metaphors in more natural contexts were discussed, as were implications for creative problem-solving. In both cases it was suggested that a direct, nonananalytic approach might be more useful in revealing unexpected and important relationships between concepts than would be the case for more analytic approaches usually stressed as optimum for either metaphor production or problem solving.Visiting Research Scholar (1979–1980)     

Lay theories of rape

This study examined ‘la’ theories of rape and compared them to numerous academic theories. One hundred and thirty subjects-52 male, 78 female-completed two questionnaires, one regarding attitudes/beliefs to rape in general, the other on the possible causes of the crime. Factor analysis revealed five factors in the attitude/belief items: Subjects generally perceived the rape victim as moral, responsible, and unprovoking; the rapist was perceived as a repressed delinquent. Subjects agreed with two of the six explanation factors, seeing rape as resulting from a desire for aggression induced by societal factors. The rapist was believed to be a psychopath. Lay theories did not correspond to any formal academic rape model or explanations. Beliefs about the causes of, and attitudes to rape, correlated highly. Age was the greatest determinant of perspective; older subjects believed more in victim precipitation. Suggestions are made for further research in this comparatively neglected area.     

Privation theories of pain

Most modern writers accept that a privation theory of evil should explicitly account for the evil of pain. But pains are quintessentially real. The evil of pain does not seem to lie in an absence of good. Though many directly take on the challenges this raises, the metaphysics and axiology of their answers is often obscure. In this paper I try to straighten things out. By clarifying and categorizing the possible types of privation views, I explore the ways in which privationists about evil are—or should or could be—privationists about pain’s evil.