Monday, January 27, 2014 - /eanin2, ’ Observable’ . Shpey shpe! ly 3 observable... ae 1s obser yobhle + Shuctuve A spaw hell Ky? sbsenabhe > wavetunctuns aven + abserable. Given obenatan semienca, yas * comb cup uf ‘Sie unite en) 2 Siriet_yenfability * sentence is implel by oabsendituns_ + stad _falshublh AN bow cf Hoye rave His Prikems coat de yeciPiable Goliifinre), Ficen Yuen Hh Moxestion wot fe, buf & He Mesto Worked bo —mneanirgtel A.S_Ayer * ven inpreseel by poosiivisrs Compir'eists) Hiearchie? Apoangh: seniencans [oO okeg- ES LET a oy OB, 6, 0, = Tine 3 are cinpelokel SSuyue Save eantreres- o (0, 0 vot Oy ) ancl (not of or @, ) Caccaching to Ms, Ay arto seurtence Bo Lernkef ye vevitihh cud *menningberl-Diseretica —athern 4 rim: Who & an ostensive definition ? R eichenbach aterm in 0 Hoey mys be Meh gable A Coocdinutive oleh f int Sut spegiFies th ayl catia’ by prin, dbstnebHe evs. g Reichenbact's notion that a term in a theory must be definable by a coordinative definition that ‘specifies its application by using observable terms. Skepticism that we can pick out such” definitions” from other assertions in a theory... Udernutive fo Reichenbach s ! Ramsey: F eaten, in law F=ma. Tt ots qppor by f= CMe r= Meaving is Leveet do its rote tn Tra Woe.Wednesday, January 29, 2014 © Meaning ful vs Mean “4 = Seienthe Teyms.. whith mes are meanin 0 (oicken buch : (Dichenbact's notion that a term ina theory must be definable by a coordinative definition that specifies its application by using observable terms. Skepticismthat we can pick out such” definitions’ from other assertions ina theory.. ‘Another af yroach looks at sentences rather than terme (after all, we can combine meaningful terms into meaningless sentences). ‘The idea of “observation sentences.” Once again problems. If they are about ideas in the mind \we lose physical realism. If they are about the physical world, isft their a slippery slope that makes all scientific assertions “observable” in their content (fromtable to dust mote to bacteriumto virus to molecule to atom to proton to quark). The invocation of meaningful as"possibly observable.” What kind of possibilty isright here (logical, physical, practical)?. Let's suppose that we can make sense of observation sentences and of the observable/unobservable distinction.. What about all the sentences of science which refer to the unobservable?, ‘Ss Wwovebunctiuns, Shanes, ete. The move to theoretical “holism” - the scientific theory as the unit of scientific meaning. Theories as a whole have observational consequences. The scientific legitimacy of a theory rests on its ability to make observational predictions. Holism as a component of a search for a demarcation between the scientific and the non- scientific. Popper's claim that pseudo-scientific theories are not genuinely testable. The use of “ad hoc" devices to obscure a theories refutation. The need for the scientist to adhere to the “yes ot tua qo" A unpiical fesbing But the problem of making this really work. Copernicus trying to defend the theory of the earth’ rotation and orbital motion against “falsifying data’ known to the ancients. Is astrology any less “scientific” than astronomy? What about phrenology? What about Marxist political theory or Freudian psychoanalytic theory?How do scientific terms referring to unobservables get their meaning from this holistic perspective? The “role ina theory” theory of meaning. An interesting historical example: Newton's force’ in his dynamical laws and constitutive roles. ‘A formal proposal: The Ramsey sentence account of theoretical terms. What this looks like. ‘Second order existence statements. Trivial “toy” models of this.. Questions of “realism.” If one accepts the holistic account should one take the theoretical terms as referring to existent entities and properties? Or shouldwe take the theory as a whole as nothing but a predictive instrument. Instrumentalisms. “reducing the theory to its observable consequences.” If one is a realist how is one to understand the theoretical terms? Terms in theories that are alsointhe observable base - alleged “semantic analogy.” The appearance of this debate in the issue of “other minds.” Putnam in favor of and Wittgenstein against semantic analogy. Another approach. Modify Ramsey sentence to have the theory say there is a unique property “such that...” Then deny that we know what that property is. Reminiscent of Kant on “the nourenel world." Throwing light on the problemby looking at the issue of alternative theories that have the same observational consequences. Laman, Ssamtences A= is aw ape Gets oeiooith Vr & wd Ve(Av* Ge ss Valve Be) Vx (6x7? Rx) == this to Chey ad 84 Lee (Ace BSB V4. Re) "Reymse cenvence” 3 derma is do ael 1 Tham. YTygapsiy pepe Sut ctrat gl apps biares And all tuys Hat hove tt are ved. Se Lumet dees this Say oben} tu yreokiny- ty ner Hay ot. Yun-ob senationed wnsWhat does Romer’ semene 3e@.us alaut fo Hie reat ell actnably fst q Qustian: Cont we inhoduce are’ Nwwmhers Non—obynvue Heunmy in On ? Let dies Huis tell uy alent Yur fexrabititg oF an-cbyened Farms © Wott oes AA g him reality ? YA GS me Ve (A Ra) Yy (67 Ry) The Observekinne Coney renee os tut af oles ave . Rut wart oy ews Meng ? : Vy (hey WlGy > “ Vel De Me (Ty23%) = Vi. (AR) a) Ve (Be Ke) Tvs Qs tho Sane Wu (Li? Re) fanek Cones roeree, bur we dnd aren knw tre t poe Hes SS UTS, and K ave --- Rut we Can st ton ond hover ye dbrenatinod VOUS — Veadisns Tperrumntedisn Fin epi~ Az Yueg & fe allw us dene dbserredine!? pedictine oto obwere:te quan tees Rep resen tatincbinn + aosDiscussion, Friday, January 31, 2014 O Srict Falah sbibho- (siiowsb V5 pseienbhe ) => Cc) Roeper popesed this @ Shia Verihiabilitg Cinaooingfiod vs meeninsiess) ® Ayger's Hiearchivel Aprorede Cnaaninghll vs not) * Sireetty verifiable! “Obsenatkon shiements + obienadtion Spurtmenls £fbewrir Boe pris obsenetin Seen Ps, ° Tndlirect My Veritra ble — Church's Oectin + Ager Deveems write & appaael 2 vs ends Lt Mecepa 4S meaning oS = Seemed v/ pe emectin & orsenation a Ox, O, ae Bivinct Crrenatirr sjectmouTk (rans Huy ve alse direct vec'fable) A= (Q2~0)& C3 v8) A 40, atl &, so As Arrety veritable Ad «3 entil 8, , <0 rob sane Lys indicots yenfia& xf a Vv , ) Sp ‘pcaningpool Oh me } ) a__page7Lecture, Friday, January 31, 2014 Cseasive Detinivon- Vebnibion nat 5 dj marital obsenatinal Fence. Deni oh a! iS heevned Pama ebaeper enone Vhot 16 Dslensive dsfanihinn & Myo. Rodectimign ~ Srcke to Ine Ly which » cloods, only i he obsenalles Phonomnenabisis® Lost toby. ~ ath scien #1. b vole ohitue Lost amen bel Sr abet elat tee lo PreclitiuS Roppose tational ~ sdance & bet our obsenatiarl Unrdesstaudiny Tate a Methopesticel’ & Tet quey Dopped bride on iy Lot amc) yebhin -_& Bras be is ta ain, exael from Big Cur shaper iesice, TD laws var pa ‘ Tf one is a realist how is one to understand the thgoretical terms? Terms in theories that are alsoin the observable base - alleged “sementicanalogy:” The appearance of this debate in the issue of “other minds.” Putnam in favor of and Wittgenstein against semantic analogy... Another approach. Modify Ramsey sentence to have the theory say there is a unique property “such that...” Then deny that we know what that property is. Reminiscent of Kant on "the noumenal world.”Throwing light on the problem by looking at the issue of alternative theories that have the same ‘observational consequences. “Transient” equivalence (having the same consequences up to now) vs. “In principle" equivalence (having all possible observational consequences the same). Difficulty in making sense of the latter notion, But examples from foundational physics that give it some plausibility (observationally equivalent spacetime theories). What should we say if we have two in principle indistinguishable theories? One line: They are ‘then fully equivalent. Positivism once again. The way this throws dobut on a realistic Understanding of theories. An alternative: Take them to be fully equivalent only if they are structurally alike at the theoretical level (say by term-by-terminter-definition such as switching ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ inelectrostatics). Subtie issues of how to understand the meaning of the theoretical terms here. DZ, Muarres, Sams obenatimn? COnseAusnces - ‘Another alternative” Be realistic about theories but claim that scientists are indifferent as to which is “true,” being concerned only with predictive adequacy at the observational level. ‘An example of two “observationally equivalent” but not “structurally equivalent” theories from spacetime physics: Newtonian spacetime vs. Galilean spacetime). Another flat spacetime plus force gravitational theories vs. curved spacetime gravitational theories. Could there be reasons for preferring one such theory over the other? We will return to this. Poncate was a Comempnal-