The Flat Analysis of Properties and the Unity of Science

Hossein Sheykh Razaee
(Department of Philosophy, University of Durham, UK)

Heil (2003) presented a flat analysis of properties, composed of two theses. According to the first, which rejects the dominant the layered picture of reality, there is only one flat level of properties, and any two objects sharing a property are exactly similar in the respect of that property. There are not multiply realizable properties. There are multiply realizable predicates designating sets of similar (not exactly similar) properties. The second thesis expresses an identity theory: properties are simultaneously dispositional and qualitative.In this paper, I will argue that the first thesis entails a version of the unity of science. 
Three components can be distinguished in any model of the unity of science. The first concerns the aspect in which, according to the model, scientific theories are unified (in my model the content of laws). The second element concerns the strategy that by following it the unity of science in the alleged respect can be shown (in my model the flat analysis of properties and realization). Finally, the third element concerns the generality of the model. This element indicates that the model covers which theories (in my model special sciences with multiply realizable predicates), and is silent about others. 
Analyzing a special-science law that connects two multiply realizable predicates (P → Q), according to the flat view, reveals that the antecedent and consequent of this law designate sets of similar properties: pis are similar properties designated by P, and qis by Q. 
Prima facie, the content of this law can be analyzed into three elements: (I) a similarity relation among pi properties: p1 ≈ p2 ≈ p3 …, (II) a set of fundamental laws: {pi → qi}, and (III) a similarity relation among qi properties: q1 ≈ q2 ≈ q3. 
First, I will argue that the third component is expectable, if not deducible, from the conjunction of (I) and (II). Then, it will be shown that a special-science law is not so rich that enumerates an endless set of possible and actual similar properties, and an endless set of fundamental laws. Instead, we normally know a few examples of similar pis (say p1…pn) that we had experienced them, and their corresponding fundamental laws (say p1 → q1… pn → qn). However, restricting the content of a projectable special-science law to claims about a few experienced properties contradicts with projectibility of the law. We need an additional clause to guarantee that the law is applicable to new samples. 
‘The Similarity Principle’ solves this problem: under the same circumstances, two similar properties, which in fact have similar dispositionalities, bring about similar results. This principle is a conceptual truth about the notion of similarity and its truth stems from the definition of similarity. By accepting this principle, the content of the special-science law can be analyzed as follows: (I*) a fundamental law expressing that there is a nomological relation between p1 and q1 (or any other particular pair of pi and qi), and (II*) The Similarity Principle: under the same circumstances, any property similar to p1 (say pj), brings about a property (say qj) similar to what p1 brings about (q1).
Now it can be seen that what a special-science law says is in fact a fundamental law plus a conceptual truth about the nature of similarity that is common between all special-science laws. Therefore, there is a unity between the content of special-science laws and the content of fundamental laws. 

Reference:

Heil, J. 2003. From an Ontological Point of View, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

The Science between bi and tri-dimensional Representation

Dan Simbotin 
(Social and Economic Research Institute, Romanian Academy, Iasi, Romenia)

^{The representation of science until Thomas Khun is simplistic. We can follow the argumentation specific to linearly causal logic, and we can identify the passage from P to C, (where P represents the premises and C the conclusion). This implies the reduction or the reordering of elements identifiable in P, differently ordered in C. We do not intend to make here a Baconian criticism of classical logic, but the explanatory capacity of such inferential structures, irrespective of how complex P or C is, is limited. This has also been identified upon the applicability of causal logic to the demands of quantum physics. The transfer from causal to numeric determines us to think about the necessity to identify non-causal representation mechanisms.}

^{The theory of Thomas Khun describes the science like imagines of the world and it is ones of most known possibilities of interpreting the science. We consider every scientific paradigms like a imagine of world, sum of independent imagines developed by theories and scientific law. In this context we developed a new method of represent the scientific method using a matrix. We call this, matrix of imagine, and it is composed by independent imagines whose was in interrelation conform gestald principle. So we can present the science like a bi-dimensional matrix organisation.}  

i11 i12 ……….i1m i21………x……y                 z in1

=  I (general image)

^{The elements composing the matrix noted with in,m represent, the particular image reflected by a scientific law or theory. The number of these images inside a matrix is infinite, but limited: infinite, because the number of images composing the matrix is in a continuous transformation, becoming and numerical development and, at the same time, limited, because the general image is known and this limit cannot be exceeded. Beyond the knowledge whose image exists, inside the matrix there exist as well unknown elements noted with x, y, z. These are identified by association with the general image and with the other elements of the matrix. The unknown elements inside the matrix are discovered by the association between images on the basis of Gestalt principles: Proximity, Similarity, Continuity, Closure, Figure and Ground.}

^{Every scientific discovery is an identify operation of the unknowns in to a matrix known. This is the operation of discovery into sciences who Thomas Khun called “normal science”. In to “revolutionary sciences” the operation is one of reconstruction of a matrix by new criteria.} 

i11 i12 …..…….i1m i21………x………

ip,q  =

i’11…y’…………. i’21……z’……….

=  I’

^{Every science has a bidimensional matrix correspondent for her paradigm. But when we consider the science in to a holistic vision, the matrix is tridimensional and the relationship between all imagines is necessary to respect the Gestald principle too. In this case we identify the difference between science in to firsts year of modernity, when the science was a “mathesis universalis” – in this case the matrix of all the science is bidimentional, and contemporary ones when every science have herself paradigm and in the vision of transcurricular aspects, the matrix is tridimentional. In this context the true is percept in different mode. We can tell a bidimentional and a tridimentional true for every kind of science.}