What components does a specific scientific theory consist of? (part 2)
PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES OF NATURAL SCIENCE
Keywords:
specific theories, complexity, types of components, polysystemic view, subsystemsAbstract
By specific theories, we mean scientific theories that focus on particular types of material reality or phenomena, such as elementary particles, plasma, superconducting materials, quantum tunnelling, chemical reactions, gene regulation, tectonic plate movement, and the Universe. After examining various visions of the theory division into components proposed by some of the prominent scientists (Isaak Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Heinrich Rudolf Hertz, Pierre Maurice Marie Duhem, Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, Albert Einstein, Norman Robert Campbel, Percy Williams Bridgman, and Gerardus (Gerard) ’t Hooft) and philosophers of science (Carl/Karl Raimund Popper, Thomas Samuel Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Karl Feyerabend, Mario Augusto Bunge, Ronald Nelson Giere, Joseph Donald Sneed, Wolfgang Balzer, and Carlos Ulises Moulines), one finds that these visions fail to consider all essential components and omit many important details, even of the chosen components. Incomplete and undifferentiated visions, on the one hand, overlook many critical features of a theory, including its development and connections with other theories. On the other hand, such visions often generate pseudo-problems, such as the incomparability of classical and quantum theories. As theories underpin the modern sciences, such perspectives lead to oversimplified and overly general understandings of science and its progress. The article briefly emphasizes the significance and utility of the polysystemic vision of specific theories and their development within history, philosophy, sociology, and pedagogy of science. The first part of the article presents the types of components and physicists’ views of theories. The second part addresses the views of philosophers and our conclusions. We emphasize that in the first part, we described a bridge between Newton’s unfading template of scientific theory and the newest trends in the interpretation of modern physical theories. It is a clear example of the Western scientific tradition of both continuity and change, so that the final product looks different, but its structure remains stable, familiar, and convenient for professionals. That is why it is quite possible for a modern-day scientist to read Newton and find statements useful for his practical activity, not to talk about specific pearls created by the genius.
References
Baggott, J., Heilbron, J.L. (2024). Quantum Drama. From the Bohr-Einstein Debate to the Riddle of Entanglement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Balzer, W., Moulines, C.U. (Eds.). (1996). Structuralist Theory of Science. Focal Issues, New Results. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Balzer, W., Moulines, C.U., Sneed, J.D. (1987). The Architectonic for Science. The Structuralist Program. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Balzer, W., Moulines, C.U., Sneed, J.D. (Eds.). (2000). Structuralist Knowledge Representation. Paradigmatic Examples. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Balzer, W., Sneed, J.D. (1989). New structuralism. [In Ukrainian]. Philosophical and Sociological Thought, 10, 93–110.
Batterman, R. (Ed.). (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buchwald, J.Z., Fox, R. (Eds.). (2014). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bunge, M. (1967). The structure and content of a physical theory. In: M. Bunge (Ed.), Delaware Seminar in the Foundations of Physics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Nature.
Bunge, M. (2017). Philosophy of Science. From Problem to Theory. Vol. 1. Revised edition. New York: Routledge.
Butterfield, J., Earman, J., Gabbay, D.M., Thagard, P. (Eds.). (2006). Philosophy of Physics. In 2 parts. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Cavalcanti, E.G. (2021). The view from a Wigner bubble. Retrieved from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.05100
Chandrasekhar, S. (1995). Newton’s Principia for the Common Reader. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Curd, M., Cover, J. (Eds.). (1998). Philosophy of Science. The Central Issues. New York, London: W.W. Norton and Company.
Díez, J., Moulines, C.U. (1999). Fundamentos de filosofía de la ciencia. 2.a edición revisada y actualizada. Barselona: Editorial Ariel.
Dowling, J.P., Milburn, G.J. (2003). Quantum technology: the second quantum revolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 361(1809), 1655–1674. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2003.1227
Duschl, R.A. (1990). Restructuring Science Education. The Importance of Theories and Their Development. New York: Teachers College Press.
Feyerabend, P. (1975/1988). Against Method. London: New Left Book; New York: Verso.
Frigg, R. (2022). Models and Theories. A Philosophical Inquiry. London, New York: Routledge.
Gabovich, O., Kuznetsov, V. (2016). Problems as internal structures of systems of scientific knowledge. [In Ukrainian]. Philosophical Dialogues 2015. To the 85th anniversary of Academician Myroslav Popovich. Philosophy. Culture. Society (pp. 132–154). Kyiv: H.S. Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy.
Gabovich, A., Kuznetsov, V. (2019). Towards periodizations of science in the history of science. In: F. Seroglou, V. Koulountzos (Eds.), Conference Book of Proceedings of 15th International Conference “History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching.” Thessaloniki, Greece, July 15th–July 19th, 2019 (pp. 585–594).
Gabovich, A., Kuznetsov, V. (2022). Path of modern natural sciences: from the discovery of realities to the study of their attributes. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, 31(2), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.15421/272214
Gabovich, A., Kuznetsov, V. (2023a). Philosophy of Scientific Theories. Essay One. Names and Entities. With English Synopsys. [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka.
Gabovich, A., Kuznetsov, V. (2023b). Scientific realism from a polysystemic view of physical theories and their functioning. Global Philosophy, 33(53). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-023-09703-0
Gabovich, A., Kuznetsov, V. (2025a). From general scientific values to particular theoretical estimations and their values. [In Ukrainian]. In: T. Gardashuk, Logical, Ontological and Axiological Dimensions of Contemporary Scientific Knowledge (pp. 10–54). Kyiv: Akademperiodyka.
Gabovich, A., Kuznetsov, V. (2025b). Newtonian celestial mechanics as a componential prototype of specific theories. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, 35(2) 3–18. https://doi.org/10.15421/272517
Gabovich, A., Kuznetsov, V., Voitenko, A. (2025). Superconductivity: Theoretical procedures and experimental protocol (Topical Review). Low Temperature Physics, 51(7), 913–931. https://doi.org/10.1063/10.0036875
Giere, R. (1988). Explaining Science. A Cognitive Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Healey, R. (2017). The Quantum Revolution in Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. (1970). Postscript. In: T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. (1978). Philosophical Papers. In 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lorenzano, P. (2010). Logic and methodology of science: an introduction to the philosophy of science. In: P. Lorenzano, H.-J. Rheinberger, E. Ortiz, C. Galles (Eds.), History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (vol. 1, pp. 1–50). EOLSS Publishers Co. Ltd: UNESCO – Encyclopedia Life Support Systems (UNESCO-EOLSS).
Manero, J. (2024). What is a physical Theory? Philosophers do have an answer by distinguishing two forms of empirical adequacy. Retrieved from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.04362
Moulines, C.U. (2002). Introduction: structuralism as a program for modelling theoretical science. Synthese, 130(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013892808077
Peacock, K.A. (2007). The Quantum Revolution. A Historical Perspective. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Popper, K. (1959/1992). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London, New York: Routledge.
Ramsey, F.P. (1931). Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays. Oxon: Routledge.
Reiss, J., Ankeny, R. (2016). Philosophy of Medicine. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medicine/
Schlosshauer, M.A. (2008). Decoherence and the Quantum-To-Classical Transition. Berlin: Springer.
Siegel, E. (2025). JWST’s Early Galaxies didn’t Break the Universe. They revealed it. Retrieved from: https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/jwst-break-universe-revealed/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=swab
Sneed, J.D. (1971). The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Suppe, F. (1998). The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
van Fraassen, B.C. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weinberg, S. (1993). Dreams of a Final Theory. The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature. London: Vintage.
Winther, R.G. (2020). The structure of scientific theories. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structure-physical-theories/
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
