The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Pierre Duhem , P. P. Wiener

1954 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 354-355
Author(s):  
Martin J. Klein
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
João Príncipe

The object of this article is to show a certain proximity of Duhem to Poincaré in his first philosophical reflections. I study the relationships between the scientific practices of the two scholars, the contemporary theoretical context and their reflections. The first part of the article concerns the changes in epistemological consensus at the turn of the century. The second part will be devoted to Poincaré's reflections on the status of physical geometries and physical theories, as they appear in his texts written around 1890. Then I analyze the first reflections of Pierre Duhem on physical theory, in particular his thesis of the hypothetical/symbolic character of physical theories and his criteria for selecting good theories, partly associated with his ideal of physical theory; the whole set of considerations, highlighting the Poincarean inspiration.


1966 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. W. Herivel

In France, as in other European countries, especially Britain and Germany, the nineteenth century was a period of great progress and achievement in science. This would still have been true if Claude Bernard and Louis Pasteur had been the only outstanding French scientists of the nineteenth century, whereas there were, of course, many others apart from an impressive number of brilliant French mathematicians. Nevertheless, although it was a great century for French science there was perhaps something rather disappointing about it, and something rather ingrowing about the attitude of French scientists towards scientific developments in other countries. For example, the French took it hard that the creator of the theory of evolution should have been an Englishman, remembering too late Darwin's predecessor Lamarck, and they certainly were very slow in accepting Darwin's theory of evolution.1 Again, the French may have felt that after the important contributions of French scientists such as Coulomb, Poisson, Biot and, above all, Ampère, the theory of electricity and magnetism which is today principally associated with the names of Faraday and Maxwell should have been created by a Frenchman. Once again this new theory was only accepted very slowly and hesitantly, and even unwillingly, in France—one thinks, for example, of the criticisms levelled at the theory by Pierre Duhem in his “The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory”.2 Of course it might be that if one knew how to weigh properly the various achievements of French scientists in different branches of science one would find that, allowing for her rather static population during the nineteenth century, the total contribution of France compared well with those of Britain and Germany. Nevertheless, in one case at least, that of theoretical physics, there seems to have been an unmistakable failure to live up to the promise of the beginning of the century. The purpose of this paper is to advance possible reasons to explain this failure.


Author(s):  
Leemon B. McHenry

What kinds of things are events? Battles, explosions, accidents, crashes, rock concerts would be typical examples of events and these would be reinforced in the way we speak about the world. Events or actions function linguistically as verbs and adverbs. Philosophers following Aristotle have claimed that events are dependent on substances such as physical objects and persons. But with the advances of modern physics, some philosophers and physicists have argued that events are the basic entities of reality and what we perceive as physical bodies are just very long events spread out in space-time. In other words, everything turns out to be events. This view, no doubt, radically revises our ordinary common sense view of reality, but as our event theorists argue common sense is out of touch with advancing science. In The Event Universe: The Revisionary Metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead, Leemon McHenry argues that Whitehead's metaphysics provides a more adequate basis for achieving a unification of physical theory than a traditional substance metaphysics. He investigates the influence of Maxwell's electromagnetic field, Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics on the development of the ontology of events and compares Whitehead’s theory to his contemporaries, C. D. Broad and Bertrand Russell, as well as another key proponent of this theory, W. V. Quine. In this manner, McHenry defends the naturalized and speculative approach to metaphysics as opposed to analytical and linguistic methods that arose in the 20th century.


1998 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 179-185
Author(s):  
Morten Grum

On evaluating the present or future state of integrated urban water systems, sewer drainage models, with rainfall as primary input, are often used to calculate the expected return periods of given detrimental acute pollution events and the uncertainty thereof. The model studied in the present paper incorporates notions of physical theory in a stochastic model of water level and particulate chemical oxygen demand (COD) at the overflow point of a Dutch combined sewer system. A stochastic model based on physical mechanisms has been formulated in continuous time. The extended Kalman filter has been used in conjunction with a maximum likelihood criteria and a non-linear state space formulation to decompose the error term into system noise terms and measurement errors. The bias generally obtained in deterministic modelling, by invariably and often inappropriately assuming all error to result from measurement inaccuracies, is thus avoided. Continuous time stochastic modelling incorporating physical, chemical and biological theory presents a possible modelling alternative. These preliminary results suggest that further work is needed in order to fully appreciate the method's potential and limitations in the field of urban runoff pollution modelling.


1947 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erwin Biser
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document