Intertheoretic Comparisons of Choice-Worthiness

Abstract

Abstract In this chapter we consider the extent to which different theories are unit-comparable, and what makes them comparable when they are. We consider three arguments for the conclusion that intertheoretic comparisons are always impossible: the appeal to cases argument, the swamping argument, and the arbitrary unit arguments. We argue against all three arguments. We distinguish between structural and non-structural accounts of intertheoretic comparisons. We argue in favour of non-structural accounts: we argue that intertheoretic comparisons are grounded in substantive facts about the theories themselves (rather than merely statistical properties of their choice worthiness function). We discuss a number of possible accounts of intertheoretic comparisons, ultimately arguing in favour of a ‘universal scale’ account.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 0 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.