ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses current location theories from the viewpoint of the philosopher of science to assess the epistemological merits of the suggested solutions to the geographic inference problem. It investigates how well the ideal approach of the behaviorists actually compares with their operationalized models. The latter investigation is prompted by the realization that it is one thing to make attractive methodological statements but quite another to translate such predilections into testable formulations. A major proposition of the Vienna Circle is that scientific statements become lawlike by being logically consistent and empirically true, i.e. by being acceptable in terms of both syntax and semantics. The chapter shows that the limited predictive power of geographic theories is due to a preoccupation with spatial patterns and a neglect of small-scale generating processes. It evaluates this premise by comparing the spatial and the behavioral approaches to the geographic inference problem of form and process.
