The aim of this paper is twofold: first to sketch a framework for classifying a wide range of conceptions of scientific objectivity and second to present and defend a conception of scientific objectivity that fills a neglected niche in the resulting hierarchy of viewpoints. Roughly speaking, the proposed ideal of scientific objectivity is effectiveness in the informal but technical sense of an effective method. Science progresses when “higher levels of communicative discourse” are reached by transforming subjective judgments regarding the generation and reduction of data or the testing of theories into objective decision procedures that are automatic or mechanical.

It is generally agreed that the method of explication consists in replacing a vague, presystematic notion (the explicandum) with a precise notion (the explicatum) formulated in a systematic context. However, Carnap and others who have used this and related terms appear to hold inconsistent views as to what constitutes an adequate explication. The central feature of the present explication of ‘explication’ is the correspondence condition: permitting the explicandum to deviate from some established “ordinary-language” conventions but, at the same time, requiring that the explicatum correspond (via an effective translation) to the chosen “definitive intension” of the explicandum. (In effect, the first stages of an explication provide an informal characterization of a vague and possibly inconsistent language convention.) The present account of explication contrasts sharply with that sketched by Quine in Word and Object (although Quine accepts a correspondence condition of a sort). The terms ‘explication1’ and ‘explication2’ are used to indicate these quite different senses of the term. In Kaplan's terminology, explication1 is intended to remedy “external vagueness” while explication2 is intended to remedy “internal vagueness.”

Empirical investigation (Nowak et al., 2012) points out that vertical intraindustry trade (VIIT) in Europe is the dominant type of intra-industry trade (IIT) in the tourism sector. This article is the first in tourism literature to test separately the determinants of vertically and horizontally differentiated services, using the most recent models in the theory of IIT. We examine bilateral trade among all trading partners of the sample of European countries, covering the period 2000 to 2008. We show that differences in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita and the incomedistribution overlap, as well as cultural proximity, are the most significant driving forces behind VIIT for European countries. Geographic distance has a negative effect, whereas specific tourism endowments and relative size of the economies are less conclusive. These results confirm theory predictions and most of the empirical findings related to the pattern of VIIT for the manufacturing sector. As expected, we find that determinants of VIIT cannot explain horizontal intra-industry trade (HIIT) in tourism. We suggest two alternative methods of estimation: Generalized Least Squares (GLS) logistic function and the fractional logit estimator. We conclude that there are common factors explaining IIT in the manufacturing and tourism trades.

No abstract

No abstract