Supervenience, Logic, and Empirical Content: Commentary on Hans Halvorson, The Logic in Philosophy of Science

Halvorson’s book’s real achievement is that it is both a source and a challenge, and not just for philosophers of science. I will begin with some notes to add to Halvorson’s discussion of supervenience and definability. Then secondly I will engage the book’s way of dealing with empirical content. Extension of formal methods to the relation of theory to world, as mediated by experiment and measurement, seems to me crucial to its value, and I will make three suggestions for this. Then thirdly I will turn to the tantalizing hints Halvorson gives us of an overall view of logic and language, and speculate about how that would answer questions about scientific representation and more specifically about the object language / metalanguage relation

Supervenience, Logic, and Empirical Content: Commentary on Hans Halvorson, The Logic in Philosophy of Science

Halvorson’s book’s real achievement is that it is both a source and a challenge, and not just for philosophers of science. I will begin with some notes to add to Halvorson’s discussion of supervenience and definability. Then secondly I will engage the book’s way of dealing with empirical content. Extension of formal methods to the relation of theory to world, as mediated by experiment and measurement, seems to me crucial to its value, and I will make three suggestions for this. Then thirdly I will turn to the tantalizing hints Halvorson gives us of an overall view of logic and language, and speculate about how that would answer questions about scientific representation and more specifically about the object language / metalanguage relation

Appearance vs. Reality as a Scientific Problem

The history of science is replete with ideals that involve some criterion of completeness. One such criterion requires that physics explain how the appearances are produced in reality. This paper argues that it is scientifically acceptable to reject this criterion, along with all other completeness criteria that have been proposed for modern science

Illusions of gunk

The possibility of gunk has been used to argue against mereological nihilism. This paper explores two responses on the part of the microphysical mereological nihilist: (1) the contingency defence, which maintains that nihilism is true of the actual world; but that at other worlds, composition occurs; (2) the impossibility defence, which maintains that nihilism is necessary true, and so gunk worlds are impossible. The former is argued to be ultimately unstable; the latter faces the explanatorily burden of explaining the illusion that gunk is possible. It is argued that we can discharge this burden by focussing on the contingency of the microphysicalist aspect of microphysical mereological nihilism. The upshot is that gunk-based arguments against microphysical mereological nihilism can be resisted