The Structure Of Scientific Theories- Book review

The structure of scientific theories, theory interpretation & criticism book review content

The author

What is a theory?

The structure of scientific theory

Knowledge obtained from reading this book about scientific theories

            Detail

            Interpretation

            Discipline

            Procedure

            Unity

The structure of scientific theory, theory interpretation, and criticism book author is a professor emeritus in philosophy at the University of Maryland. Suppe was born in 1940 he has a great interest in the philosophy of science and this book is one of his prominent works. The author gathers various documents where they were an outcome of the 1969 Illinois symposium to stand on the chaos (as he says) in the direction of the scientific theories and to select an alternative productive intellectual direction to follow. The contributors are from different philosophic backgrounds and are figures in the scientific research discipline. The book covers several scientific theories debates like the Received view, perception-communication, theory paradigms, theory domains, Instrumentalism, and realism.

To start with, within the book covers the reader finds different definitions for theory. For example, a theory is considered to be cognitive significance if it is verifiable and can be tested to be true.

Karl R. Popper says theories are nets cast to catch what we call “the world” to rationalize, to explain, and to master it. We Endeavour to make the mesh even finer and finer.

The world is witnessing massive and fast development in knowledge and new inventions and theories. According to that we can observe, and read different structures for the scientific theory depending on two factors the research inquiry and the scientist himself. The structure of scientific theory according to Campbell is composed of three components “an abstract calculus that is the logical Skelton of the explanatory system, a set of Correspondence rules that assign an empirical content to the abstract calculus, and an interpretation or model for the abstract calculus.” While Toulmin tells us that, a theory contains at least two distinct components “ideals of natural order, and other laws which are used to account for phenomenal deviations from the ideals.”

Knowledge obtained from reading this book about scientific theories

Many readers who are specialized in scientific research and advanced research methods may look into the historical development and the current debate about the structure of scientific theory and its development approaches. I am one who is interested in the paradigm shift in theory building, which led me to read this book in 2019. In reading this book, a reader benefits from the scientist’s characters, work, and discussion. I summarize these points as follows with a link to the book content:

All scientists in building a theory are extremely devoted to details about the theory of concern. Adding to that in studying, theory interpretation and criticism scientist find specific points of the relevant scientific theory that lacks the required knowledge to become acceptable and approved theory. All scientists agree on a certain process of analyzing a theory, which is the base to find any point of departure from the main theory. For example from these process characteristics of theory analysis:  the analytic-synthetic distinction must not be presumed, the meaning of theoretical terms must be constructed as being antecedently meaningful, and the procedures for correlating theories with phenomena must not all be viewed as integral components of theories, whatever formalization is involved must be semantic, not syntactical and so on.

Here in this book, you will realize how different scientist interprets the scientific theory and how that affects the rise of discrepancies in understanding. In the theory, interpretation, and criticism scientists are careful in using the language to explanatory their theory and that is essential for the scientific community to understand the theory accurately. For example, Hanson while talking about facts and casualty says if two people have different capabilities in expressing x object location or the x object itself they will give different explanations and impressions about the x object and its location regardless it is the same for the two. Another example within the general criticism of the Weltanschauung analyses: meanings are theory-laden the descriptive terms –both observational and theoretical- used by science undergo a shift in meaning when incorporated into, or used in conjunction with, a theory.  

Discipline is a major personal characteristic of scientists and scientific work. Scientists show extreme respect in all aspects of human interaction and communication about their work with the scientific community. They discuss debate matters of scientific theory; introduce their argument with total professionalism. For example, when a scientist finds a defect in a theory, you can observe respect in the discussion and in introducing this defect. Here Masterman finds twenty-one different ways in which Kuhn’s (theory analyses) paradigm not all of which are compatible with each other. In his explanation of theories analyses, the word paradigm in two major sentences gives different meanings.

The structure of the scientific theory is always concerned with procedures. In various areas of the book, readers will find how scientists from different disciplines look into a scientific theory and find, research, and analyze a specific point of departure in the theory that needs more focus and examination. For example, Kahn has a different view about exemplars (standard procedures) where scientists believe that the study of exemplars is part of a scientist’s background and training. He says exemplars typically pose a question and then indicate how it is solved. By studying exemplars, the scientist learns what questions to ask and the type of answers the science finds acceptable. In doing that the scientist acquires a list of experimental methods and procedures, ideas on how to design experiments, and the sort of parameters relevant or must be subject to experimental control.

Almost all scientists agree that the concept of differences in theory interpretation and criticism is in unity. But when the reader finds that scientific theories in one domain are not even unified in terms of building, application, and even outcomes release the cause of differences as they admit always. For example, Hanson question whether it is actually true that two persons holding radically different theories about the same objects really do see the same thing. He indicates that what one can see depends on the context and the perceiver’s knowledge, experience, and theories, and concludes that if one sees different things in x that involves having different knowledge and theories about x.

These are the main knowledge areas that a reader may benefit from reading this book. If you are interested in theory building you can read my previous book reviews of theory building books listed below:

Theory building by Robert Dubin

Theory building in applied discipline by Richard & Thomas

Theory building in educational research by Nigel Kettley