Models of the Universe: Children’s Experiences and Evidence from the History of Science

2006 ◽  
Vol 16 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 801-833 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasiliki Spiliotopoulou-Papantoniou
2002 ◽  
Vol 09 (03) ◽  
pp. 291-299
Author(s):  
Milan M. Ćirković

Recent intriguing discussion of heat death by Kutrovátz is critically examined. It is shown that there exists another way of answering the heat death puzzle, already present in the ancient philosophical tradition. This alternative route relies not only on the final duration of time (which has been re-discovered in modern times), but also on the notion of observational self-selection, which has received wide publicity in the last several decades under the title of the anthropic principle(s). We comment here on some further deficiencies of the account of Kutrovátz. Although the questions Kutrovátz raises are important and welcome, there are several errors in his treatment of cosmology which mar his account of the entire topic. In addition, the nascent discipline of physical eschatology holds promise of answering the basic explanatory task concerning the future evolution of the universe without appealing to metaphysics. This is a completely novel feature in the history of science, in contradistinction to the historical examples discussed by Kutrovátz.


KronoScope ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-111
Author(s):  
Christophe Bouton

Abstract This paper deals with the problem of the emergence of time in three different ways, at the intersection of the history of philosophy and the history of science: 1) the emergence of time with subjectivity examined on the basis of Kant’s idealism; 2) the emergence of time with life, considered in the light of the work of Bergson; 3) the emergence of time with the Universe, in relation to the notions of ‘The Big Bang’ and ‘The Planck Wall’. It concludes that the idea of the emergence of time is inconsistent in a diachronic sense, and problematic in a synchronic sense. One meaning could, however, be accorded to this notion: with life, a new relation to time has emerged and has attained one of its most developed forms with the human being.


2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (06) ◽  
pp. 831-856
Author(s):  
VIRGINIA TRIMBLE

The history of science can be recounted in many ways: by addressing the work of one person or school; by starting with the ancients and working chronologically up to the present; by focusing on a particular century; or by tracing a particular important idea as far back and forward as it can be found. The present discussion does none of these. Rather, it adopts the ordering of a standard introductory astronomy textbook, from the solar system via stars and galaxies, to the universe as a whole, and in each regime picks out a few issues that were controversial or wrongly decided for a long time. For each, I attempt to identify a duration of the period of uncertainty or error and some of the causes of the confusion. This is surely not an original idea, though I am not aware of having encountered it elsewhere, and it is not one that is likely to appeal to most 21st century historians of science, for whom the question "Who first got it right?" is not necessarily an important, or even appropriate, one. Some of the stories have been told as historical introductions to conferences and are here summarized and brought up to date. Others I had not previously addressed.


1987 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 357-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. J. Gurevich

Duhem's great contribution to the study of the history of medieval science is indisputable. His book remains an excellent source of information concerning the ideas of the epoch's thinkers about the foundations of the universe. Ariew's painstaking translation of a considerable portion of Duhem's ten-volume work deserves the deep gratitude of all those interested in medieval science. Le Systéme du monde regains its actuality. Nevertheless, to write now about a book produced by this great scholar at the beginning of the century is not an easy undertaking, and involves some risk. Too many changes have taken place in the principles of studying the history of science during the seventy-odd years since the book was written, and some notions that seemed then to be perfectly clear are not so simple and indisputable now. With profound respect for this feat of scholarship, I should like to make some observations in connection with the recent English publication of Duhem's book.


1991 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 453-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Menachem Kellner

An interesting question arises in the context of the typically medieval description of the universe presented at the beginning of Maimonides' (1138–1204) great law code, the Mishneh Torah. What was Maimonides' own attitude towards that account? Was it meant only as a statement of the best description of nature available at the time (and thus radically distinct from the halakhic (i.e. Jewish legal) matters which make up the bulk of the Mishneh Torah) or was it meant to be a description of the true nature of the universe as it really is, not subject to revision in the light of new paradigms or new models (and thus essentially similar to the halakhic matters in the text)? Answering this question will lead us to a better understanding of Maimonides' understanding of the nature of science and of what I shall call, for lack of a better term, scientific progress. Maimonides will be shown to hold that while sublunar science can reach perfection and completion such is not possible for superlunar science and that to the extent that the scientific matters in the Mishneh Torah deal with the latter they could not have been presented as the final description of the universe as it truly is.


Speculation ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 216-261
Author(s):  
Peter Achinstein

Some scientists and philosophers claim that a “Theory of Everything” (TOE) exists and that scientists should find it. Such a theory will explain everything on the basis of fundamental laws and fundamental constituents of the universe to which everything else is reducible. This chapter clarifies what a TOE is supposed to be and do, and examines arguments in favor of the idea that there is a TOE and it should be found. These arguments involve claims from the history of science, claims about what science presupposes, claims about unification in science, and others. In response, this chapter shows not only that these arguments fail to establish their claims, but also that they fail to establish the desirability of a TOE. Contrary to what TOE enthusiasts insist, the intelligibility of the world does not depend on finding a TOE and using it to explain what scientists want and need to explain. Intelligibility is a local and contextual matter.


1997 ◽  
Vol 161 ◽  
pp. 785-788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven J. Dick

AbstractThe recent discoveries of planets around Sun-like stars, possible primitive Martian fossil life, and conditions on Europa conducive to microbial life, render more urgent the question of the place of bioastronomy in the history of science. This paper argues that the tenets of bioastronomy constitute a «biophysical cosmology», a scientific world view that holds that life is common throughout the universe. Many of the activities of the field of bioastronomy are tests of this cosmology. Like other cosmologies, the biophysical cosmology bears strongly on humanity’s place in the universe. Cosmological status may also be useful in discussing die implications of contact, when one considers the response to other cosmologies as partial, if imperfect, analogues.


Author(s):  
Michael H. Fox

The story of radiation is the story of the atom and of subatomic particles. I should warn you that I love this story because it is one of the most fascinating and compelling stories in the history of science, it involves a cast of brilliant scientists, and it changed the world. So I get enthused and want to go into too much detail—at least that is what my students think. But to really understand the story, it will be necessary to learn some complicated and apparently nonsensical ideas in physics. I will try to keep the technical details to a minimum, but if you really want to understand what radiation is and where it comes from, stick with me as we explore the story. I hope you will be fascinated, too. The beginnings of the story go back to Indian and Greek philosophers who postulated that the universe consisted of space and indivisible particles that could combine to form more complex matter. The term átomos, meaning uncuttable or indivisible, was coined by the Greek philosopher Democritus in the fourth century B.C.E . While this was purely a philosophical speculation, it was a remarkable insight. More than a thousand years later, science and experimentation began to uncover just what this meant. John Dalton is credited with being the father of modern atomic theory in chemistry. In 1803 he developed the idea that elements consist of atoms, that different atoms have different weights, and that the atoms of a specific element are all alike but are different from those of other elements. He also proposed that atoms can combine in specific proportions to make up compounds or molecules. But are atoms really indivisible, and if not, what are they made of? Nearly a hundred years after Dalton, this question began to be answered in a burst of experiments and insights at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, starting with the discovery of radiation.


2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Owen Gingerich

The work comprises thoughts on the relationships between the study of Universe and faith. It shows the universe in which God is present – not acknowledged by science, but not excluded either. The author refers to the newest achievements in astronomy and cosmology, quotes numerous anecdotes from the history of science, comments on the evolutionist beliefs and relates to the Intelligent Design Movement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document