Problems of the Logic of Scientific Knowledge

441 Pages·1969·27.184 MB·English

by  P. V. Tavanec, V. S. à vyrev (auth.), P. V. Tavanec (eds.)

PROBLEMS OF THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
SYNTHESE LIBRARY
MONOGRAPHS ON EPISTEMOLOGY,
LOGIC, METHODOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE,
SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE AND OF KNOWLEDGE,
AND ON THE MATHEMATICAL METHODS OF
SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Editors:
DONALD DAVIDSON, Princeton University
JAAKKO HINTIKKA, University of Helsinki and Stanford University
GABRIEL NUCHELMANS, University of Leyden
WESLEY C. SALMON, Indiana University
PROBLEMS OF THE LOGIC OF
SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
Edited by
P. V. TAVANEC
D. REIDEL PUBLISHING COMPANY / DORDRECHT-HOLLAND
PROBLEMI LOGIKI NAUCNOGO POZNANIJA
Published by Nauka, Moscow, 1964
Translated from the Russian by T. J. Blakeley
ISBN-13: 978-94-010-3395-4 e-ISBN-13: 978-94-0 I 0-3393-0
001: 10.1007/978-94-010-3393-0
© 1970. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 15t edition 1970
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm,
or any other means, without written permission from the publisher
TRANSLATOR'S NOTE
This book could have been translated either by a logician with knowledge
of contemporary Soviet philosophy or by a philosopher with some
knowledge of contemporary logic. Because it was done by the latter, the
translation was laboriously reviewed by at least seven experts charged
with eliminating 'infelicities' (as one of them was kind enough to put it!)
and egregious blunders in translation.
The results will not always be uniform for it is hard for someone who
is not devoted heart and soul to logic alone to see why one should prefer
'urn' to 'jar' when drawing probability marbles; or 'environment' to
'milieu'; or 'behavior' to 'comportment', etc. It is above all quite im
possible to see why one should use the irretrievably vulgar expression
'one-to-one' instead of the legitimate 'univocal', especially when talking
in the context of analogy.
Other irregularities can be directly traced to the lack of a consecrated
mathematical-logical nomenclature in Russian. We have resolved the
conflicts by maintaining, with the help of the experts, the consecrated
mathematical-logical terminology used in the non-Soviet scientific
world, while trying to convey the greater 'ontological depth' of the
specifically dialectical-materialist view. 'Predlozenie' has been rendered as
'sentence', vyskazyvanie' as 'proposition', and 'utverzdenie' as 'statement'
or 'assertion', unless the context indicated otherwise. 'Soderzatel'nyj' has
been rendered as 'informal' where possible and otherwise as 'contentful'.
In line with accepted usage, 'zakonomernyj' has been rendered as 'regular'
or 'law-bound', according to context. In all cases where a decision had to
be made, style has been sacrificed to logical clarity. But, uncomfortable
neologisms, like 'deductification', 'always true', 'mass-phenomena', etc.,
have been avoided whenever a clear alternative was available. We have
not tried to eliminate the lengthy enumerations, appositions and juxtapo
sitions which are so typical of Soviet philosophical writing.
The following list of inconsistencies on the part of the Soviet authors
themselves will help to explain other obscurities. Sadovskij sometimes
VI TRANSLATOR'S NOTE
uses vyvod and dedukcija as synonyms (=deduction); sometimes in the
same paragraph he will use vyvod as the genus ( = inference), of which
dedukcija and indukcija are species. To avoid any possible confusion, we
have put 'inferable' for vyvodimyj, instead of 'deducible'. Demov's
article is a study in the use and abuse of terminology. His main concept,
'inference by analogy' is sometimes vyvod po analogii, sometimes umozakl
jucenie po analogii: the two terms can be taken as synonymous but even
the careless philosopher (not to speak of the careful logician) should note
that umozakljucenie has psychologistic overtones. Demov uses kacestvo,
svojstvo and priznak quite randomly: we have rendered them as 'quality',
'property' and 'characteristic', respectively; the resulting potpourri is his
responsibility. Although we have bowed to the experts in translating
Gorskij's odnoznacnost' as 'uniqueness', I am sure 'synonymity' would be
more consistent with his philosophic history. It is also hard to imagine
Gorskij using the term 'domain of individuals' and he most certainly
does not intend the nominalism which seems to lurk behind these words.
Since most of the symbolism is a mix of Cyrillic and Latin characters
we have not transposed it in the translation. Some of the quotations of
non-Russian authors are taken from the original: as a rule, however, we
have simply translated from the Russian - which offers the advantage of
seeing the text in question through their eyes.
In the bibliographies the blatant errors have been corrected (A. J. Ayer
for A. Y. Ayer; H. Reichenbach for G. Reichenbach) but there are still
many incomplete references - which is all too characteristic of Soviet
bibliographical work.
Our thanks are due to Professor Jaakko Hintikka and his staff for
indicating weaknesses and mistakes in translation. Professor Edward M.
MacKinnon of Boston College was kind enough to give the manuscript a
final reading.
The f(')llowing abbreviations have been retained, especially in the
bibliographies:
BSE = Large Soviet NT = Scientific Works
Encyclopedia (periodic publications
i dr. = and others (et alii) of scientific institutions)
ITEF = Institute of Theoretical and Soc. = works (collected or
Experimental Physics complete)
TRANSLATOR'S NOTE VII
t. = volume Philosophy)
UZ = Learned Papers Vyp. = issue
(see NT) ZETF = Journal of
VF = Voprosy filosofii Experimental and
(Questions of Theoretical Physics
December 23, 1966
Boston College
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Translator's Note v
P. v. Tavanec and V. S. Svyrev, The Logic of Scientific Knowledge 1
V. A. Smirnov, Levels of Knowledge and Stages in the Process of
Knowledge 22
I. Differences Between the Problems, 'Sensation-Thought'
and 'Empirical-Theoretical' 22
II. Basis of the Division of the Sentences of the Language of
Science into Levels 23
III. The Semantic System: Admissible Objects of Thought and
Modes of Expression 26
IV. Empirical and Theoretical Objects of Science 29
V. Sentences Which Express Facts and Sentences Which
Formulate Laws 33
VI. Stages in the Process of Knowledge 41
1. Observation 42
2. Analysis of observation protocols and discovery of
empirical connections 45
3. Prediction by means of facts and empirical connections 47
VII. Types of Explanation of Empirical Connections 48
VIII. Stages in the Process of Knowledge, II 50
4. Elaboration of the basic ideas and discovery of the fun
damental relations, basic to explanation: formation of
scientific theory 50
5. Deduction of some theoretical laws from other theoretical
laws: development of theory 50
6. Explanation of scientific facts, i.e., discovery through
empirical relations of corresponding theoretical models 51
7. The discovery of empirical connections through theoretical
descriptions 51
x TABLE OF CONTENTS
v.
S. Svyrev, Problems of the Logical-Methodological Analysis of
Relations Between the Theoretical and Empirical Planes of Scientific
Knowledge 55
I. The Traditional Inductivist Approach to the Problem of the
Relations Between Theoretical and Empirical Knowledge
and its Limitations 57
II. Critique of the Neopositivist Approach to the Analysis of
the Relations Between the Theoretical and Empirical
Levels of Scientific Knowledge 64
III. Contemporary Logic of Science on the Relations Between
Theoretical and Empirical Knowledge: The Connection
of the Theoretical and Empirical Levels of Knowledge in
the Structure of Hypothetical-Deductive Theory 69
IV. Contemporary Logic of Science on the Relations Between
Empirical and Theoretical Knowledge: The Problem of the
Establishment of Logical Correspondence Between Theo-
retical and Empirical Knowledge 79
A. A. Zinov'ev, Logical and Physical Implication 91
V. N. Sadovskij, The Deductive Method as a Problem of the Logic
of Science 160
I. Introduction 160
II. Deduction and Deductive Inference 164
III. Deductive System and Deductive Theory 175
IV. Types of Deductive Systems 186
V. Problems of the Logical-Epistemological Analysis of the
Deductive Sphere of Knowledge 199
G. I. Ruzavin, Probability Logic and its Role in Scientific Research 212
I. Introduction 212
II. Systems of Probability Logic 217
1. Various interpretations of the notion of probability 217
2. Systems of probability logic, based on the frequency inter-
pretation of probability 221
3. Systems of probability logic which consider probability as
some sort of logical relation between propositions 231
T ABLE OF CONTENTS Xl
III. Probability Logic and Statistical Inference 245
IV. Probability Logic and the Problem of the Selection of
Hypotheses 255
V. Probability Logic and the Problem of Confirmation of
Hypotheses 258
A. 1. Uemov, The Basic Forms and Rules of Inference by Analogy 266
I. The General Schema of Inferences by Analogy 266
II. Traditional Analogy 273
III. Causal and Substantial Analogy 283
IV. Analogy of Consequence 291
V. Analogy of Correlation 297
VI. Functional-Structural and Structural-Functional Analogy 305
D. P. Gorskij, On the Types of Definition and Their Importance for
Science 312
I. Preliminary Remarks 313
II. Types of Definition 315
III. The Problem of Definitions in Formal Systems 348
IV. On the Importance of Definitions in Science 365
A. L. Subbotin, Idealization as a Method of Scientific Knowledge 376
I. The Abstraction of Identity 376
II. Idealization 381
III. Some Methodological Considerations 387
A. N. Rakitov, The Statistical Interpretation of Fact and the Role
of Statistical Methods in the Structure of Empirical Knowledge 394
I. The Nature of Empirical Knowledge and the Principle of
Verification 395
1. The schema of the process of verification 396
2. Substitution of the confirmation principle for the principle
of verification 398
3. The principle of complete verifiability 399
4. Data of a single observation and the cardinal relation 400
5. The transition from data to statistical resume 403
6. The fact of science 405