Impossibility Of Translation Theory To Restore

On the basis of theory structure syntax view, Ernest Nagel asa scientific philosopher has most early established a clearer theoryreduction model and has given the classification of theory reduction.,and has proposed some formal conditions and non-formal conditions ofthe theory reduction. Afterwards, Kenneth. Schaffner has proposed thegeneral reduction model and the general reduction—replacement model.Schaffner's model is only the revision and attenuation of theNagel's model, and has not broken through the syntax viewtradition.I believe, If a theory is regarded as an axiomizationalpropositional calculus system such as the syntax view, the reductionbetween the theories only can be equivalent translation between thepropositions. In other words, Nagel's and Schaffner's reduction modelbelong to the sentence-by-sentence translation generic theory reduction.First, there are some contradictions in the form model, and theextension is inconsistent with the significance request. According tothe condition of connectability, two theory terminologies only have thecommon extension in the reduction function. According to thecondition of derivability, two theory terminologies should have theidentical significance, otherwise, they have gone against the logic rule ofidentity. Second, Judging from the history of science, some reductionistspersist in the sentence-by-sentence translation generic theory reduction,which is nonexistent, and some anti-reductioniss claim that all theoryreduction is nonexistent, which is unreasonable. Finally, in the Popper's,Kuhn's,Feyeabend's and Hull's objections, they are focused at thesentence-by-sentence translation generic theory reduction, yet theyclaims that all theory reduction are impossible. Although it is beset withdifficulties for the theory reduction on the basis of the syntax view, but this certainly did not mean any genric theory redutioncannot achieve. The difficulties of the equivalent translation mainly comesfrom the difference the extensions and the synonymity. The cognitionalsignificance of two inter—replacable theory terminologies may becompletely different.