It is commonly acknowledged in science that model construction is one of the most important components of theorizing. Philosophers of science are gradually coming to acknowledge this situation, spurred on by holders of the semantic view of theories. In this paper I wish to defend a very deflationary version of the semantic view of theories, which is more or less a re-statement of the above commonplace. I reject the view encapsulated in the identity statement “scientific theories are families of models,” although acknowledging the useful insights into science that holders of this strong position have given us. My position derives from a critique of various of the semantic views of theories, and further from a guiding presupposition that rather than providing necessary and sufficient conditions for what a theory is, philosophers should focus on the nature of scientific theorizing. Theorizing is carried out by practicing scientists, and we cannot say what scientific theories are unless we appreciate the myriad ways they are used and developed in all of the sciences.

No abstract

I propose an approach to naturalized philosophy of science that takes the social nature of scientific practice seriously. I criticize several prominent naturalistic approaches for adopting “cognitive individualism”, which limits the study of science to an examination of the internal psychological mechanisms of scientists. I argue that this limits the explanatory capacity of these approaches. I then propose a three-level model of the social nature of scientific practice, and use the model to defend the claim that scientific knowledge is socially produced.

Back to Main Page Journal instruction requires a country for affiliations; however, this is missing in affiliation [1]. Please verify if the provided country is correct and amend if necessary.USA is correct.2. Kindly check and confirm whether the processed Abstract and Keywords are correct. Amend if necessary.

I respond to Vladas Griskevicius and Douglas T. Kendrick (G&K) and Gad Saad's (S) defenses of the view that Consumer Studies would benefit from the appeal to evolution in all work aimed at understanding consumer behavior. I argue that G&K and S's reliance on one theoretical perspective, that of evolutionary psychology, limits their options. Further, I point out some specific problems with the theoretical perspective of evolutionary psychology. Finally, I introduce some alternative evolutionary approaches to studying human behavior that could profitably be adopted in consumer research.