Nomologico-Deductive Analytic Methods
An attempt to delimit and analyse a family of analytic methods intended to encompass most kinds of philosophical analysis, and the methods of the deductive and empirical sciences, using methods of that same kind.
Origins, motivations and outlines.
Notes on the origins of Nomologico-Deductive Analysis and on various contributory influences.
Origins, motivations and outlines.

One of the motivators is to soften an advocacy of formal logical methods (in philosophy and elsewhere) into an objective analysis of a range of analytic methods. This is intended to provide data for others to make their own pragmatic judgements about what methods are best for the problems they want to address.

So we have here, ab initio, an interest in the application of analytic method to analytic methods. This leads to the idea that the methods must be given a structured presentation, in which the broadest most abstract characteristics are first exposed, and a variety of ways in which the method may be made more specific, stage by stage. We thus generate a family of methods under the same general heading, and seek to analyse this family using a variety of objective standards of comparison. The analysis of the family yields mutiple partial orderings of methods supported by claims that particular distinctions are significant in relation to particular criteria of evaluation.

Notes on the origins of Nomologico-Deductive Analysis and on various contributory influences.
Proximate Origins
Ancient Influences
Further Factors
Elemants and Aspects of The Methods
Analysis replaces Dogma
Our approach is rooted in Open Scepticism, in which the approach to dogma is subverted by a kind of semantic ascent. The idea here is that instead of chosing some particular proposition or theory with a view to determining its truth and then erecting the theory into a dogma, we consider a full range of plausible alternatives and subject this range to comparative analysis. Instead of then adopting one as true, we simply note the results of a variety of comparisons and this information is available for further research or for application. When a choice has to be made (for some application) this is made, for that application, and the alternatives are still available and may be preferred for different applications or in different circumstances.

Carnap's principle of tolerance was a linguistic pluralism. In his philosophy the semantics of a language incorporated the meanings of its concepts, and the implicit ontology. In this sense, he was also pluralistic with respect to what most people would call metaphysics (though in his terms these questions "internal" to a well-defined language do not constitute metaphysics). "The" method of nomologico-deductive analysis is pluralistic also in respect of methods, it embraces and compares any method of analysis which is intended to involve or enable deductive reasoning about any subject matter.

Carnap's syntactic method involved a notion of "semantic ascent", but was partly inspired by the possibility of languages acting their own metalanguages. This may have contributed to the sharp distinction he drew between "internal" and "external" questions rather than the recognition of a heirarchy in which a question internal to one lenguage is internal to its metalanguage.

Our pluralism may be thought of more in terms of such heirachies not only of languages but also of methods. In this pluralism, the alternatives are not simply set baldly alongside each other. They are themselves subject to analysis, and in this analysis they are to be compared by multiple criteria. Each such criteria provides a partial ordering, and may itself be evaluated by other criteria.

Deduction as Analytic Core
The Use of Abstract Models
The Nomologico-Deductive Method in Science
The method correponds well with existing methods both for deductive and empirical science.
Empirical Science

up quick index © RBJ

privacy policy


$Id: xm001.xml,v 1.3 2009/12/16 21:55:38 rbj Exp $