Talk:Received view of theories

"has been replaced by"...
..really? Or is this just Suppe's view? No citation is given, and AFAIK this is a minority view.128.214.69.60 (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * According to this source: "the semantic view is now assumed as the default explication of the notion of a scientiﬁc theory" and (citing Roman Frigg) "over the last four decades the semantic view of theories has become the orthodox view on models and theories." I have added it to the article as a citation. I also added a more recent article by Suppe that addresses the issue more directly. Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that saying that it has "replaced" the view of theories as formal systems (of propositions) untrue. I would be more fitting to say that the semantic view of theory has gained support recently. But it is still not demonstrated by the sources (not even close) that the syntactiv view has been "replaced". Tpylkkö (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I made changes to reflect this view and added "in-text attribution" as per Citing sourcesTpylkkö (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Even so, I believe that the point is still undersourced. "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources" (Verifiability). This argument should be supported by something equivalent to at least 2 unrelated review articles. Tpylkkö (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tpylkkö! Thanks for your edits. :-) Unfortunately, the wording "gained support" is different from what the sources supporting it actually say, so we can't use that wording. You will need to present other sources which dispute this claim.

As a result, I have undone your edits. I see that you're a relatively new editor, so just to let you know that this is not meant to be confrontational. It is a normal procedure on Wikipedia (see WP:BRD) when there is a disagreement. An article is restored to its original form until the discussion on the talk page is finished, and the edit can be made again if there is agreement to do so.

If you can present appropriate sources I will, of course, agree with you. Remember, though, that I mentioned a second source above which I did not actually add; I have now added it. Roman Frigg is one of the authors of the "Models in Science" article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, so his source carries some weight. Note that sources (if there are any) which simply promote the received view are not as strong as the sources we already have, unless they also state that the received view is still held my at least a significant minority of philosophers.

With regard to your specific comments: this statement does not meet any of the four categories of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. (As a side comment, it would seem surprising to me if the received view were still maintained, because logical positivism is essentially dead and they were the main proponents of that view.) In-text attribution is a little more of a gray area, but it is not used for factual statements, such as "the semantic view is now the dominant view among philosophers," unless there is reason to believe (again, based on sources) that the statement may be incorrect. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Still, how do the cited sources show that the semantic theory has replaced the "received view"? Do they even claim this, id so where exactly?Tpylkkö (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The link is incorrect in the third article.Tpylkkö (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I corrected the link - thanks for catching that. :-) It should point to the right place now.

With regards to the sources, I have to say it seems relatively clear to me - for example, in the quotes I gave you above from source 3 (Halvorsen) - essentially by the definitions of "default explication" and "orthodox view." Taking a larger quote: "The twentieth century saw two proposed formal explications of the concept of a 'scientific theory'... [The syntactic view] was so dominant during the first half of the twentieth century that Hilary Putnam dubbed it the 'received view.' But during the 1960s and 1970s, philosophers of science revolted against the received view and proposed the alternative semantic view of theories...Within a few short decades, the semantic view has established itself as the new orthodoxy. (Emphasis mine)"

I think "replaced" is a suitable word to describe this, though that is not to say that it could not be described in other ways. Sources 2 (Suppe) and 4 (Frigg) do not directly support the entire statement, but 2 provides extra support that the received view failed (Suppe uses the word "failed," and also "died"), and 4 provides extra support (see the quote I mentioned in my first reply) that that the semantic view is now dominant. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think "replaced" is not a suitable word. It could be a suitable word in the case that you could use reliable sources to demonstrate that the so called "received view" is no longer supported by anyone. These sources, however, claim (but don't demonstrate) that the semantic view is today as popular (or perhaps more popular) than previously. It does not follow from this that no one anymore supports what Putnam called the "received view". Actually, one of the sources seems to be arguing against the semantic view. This entire problem could be resolved by abiding by Wikipedia guidelines on attribution Attribution and No original research, and writing something to the effect: "according to x the semantic theory of theories gained more support to the point of being more popular than the "received view" in the 20th century." Tpylkkö (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Demonstration is not required within a source; the guidelines are at WP:RS. The sources we have do not merely claim that the semantic view is "more popular" but that it is dominant (to the point of calling it "orthodoxy"), and that the received view previously held that position but now does not. The article does not claim that nobody supports the received view, only the weaker statement that it is no longer the dominant view.


 * I am glad that you are spending time reading the policies; I strongly encourage you to continue. However, Attribution discusses attribution to sources, not inline attribution to authors; you were probably looking for WP:INTEXT. I already addressed this issue above; but to expand, in-text attribution is a due weight violation when there is no evidence for believing a statement to be false. Of course, if you can supply evidence (in the form of reliable sources of similar quality to the ones we already have), then my opinion would change on this.


 * However, you are always free to ask for more input - for example, at WP:RSN regarding sourcing, or Wikiproject Philosophy to talk to other editors interested in the philosophy of science. FWIW, I am a scientist myself and think in terms of models - I avoid the term "axiom" since it implies something that is assumed without evidence. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * But do you not disagree that there is a difference between "replaced" and "the weaker statement that it is no longer the dominant view." Tpylkkö (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not, but the article does not just say "replaced" but includes the qualification "as the dominant view." This is the weaker statement. :-)


 * In line with this, though, I agree with your edit on Scientific theory. Just a couple of comments: in your new sentence, the phrase "which identifies scientific theories with models rather than propositions" now refers to the received view when it should refer to the semantic view. Also, Wikipedia discourages use of the word "recently" as it is a relative time reference, so I would avoid it. Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)