Modern Science and Zeno's Paradoxes. Adolf Grünbaum

1969 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-107
Author(s):  
Peter Caws
1970 ◽  
Vol 20 (80) ◽  
pp. 296
Author(s):  
John North ◽  
Adolf Grunbaum

1969 ◽  
Vol 53 (385) ◽  
pp. 331
Author(s):  
T. A. A. Broadbent ◽  
A. Grunbaum

1970 ◽  
Vol 21 (8) ◽  
pp. 365-365
Author(s):  
G G Alway

2004 ◽  
pp. 36-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Buzgalin ◽  
A. Kolganov

The "marketocentric" economic theory is now dominating in modern science (similar to Ptolemeus geocentric model of the Universe in the Middle Ages). But market economy is only one of different types of economic systems which became the main mode of resources allocation and motivation only in the end of the 19th century. Authors point to the necessity of the analysis of both pre-market and post-market relations. Transition towards the post-industrial neoeconomy requires "Copernical revolution" in economic theory, rejection of marketocentric orientation, which has become now not only less fruitful, but also dogmatically dangerous, leading to the conservation and reproduction of "market fundamentalism".


Author(s):  
Angelina E. Shatalova ◽  
Uriy A. Kublitsky ◽  
Dmitry A. Subetto ◽  
Anna V. Ludikova ◽  
Alar Rosentau ◽  
...  

The study of paleogeography of lakes is an actual and important direction in modern science. As part of the study of lakes in the North-West of the Karelian Isthmus, this analysis will establish the dynamics of salinity of objects, which will allow to reconstruct changes in the level of the Baltic Sea in the Holocene.


Author(s):  
Ronald Hoinski ◽  
Ronald Polansky

David Hoinski and Ronald Polansky’s “The Modern Aristotle: Michael Polanyi’s Search for Truth against Nihilism” shows how the general tendencies of contemporary philosophy of science disclose a return to the Aristotelian emphasis on both the formation of dispositions to know and the role of the mind in theoretical science. Focusing on a comparison of Michael Polanyi and Aristotle, Hoinski and Polansky investigate to what degree Aristotelian thought retains its purchase on reality in the face of the changes wrought by modern science. Polanyi’s approach relies on several Aristotelian assumptions, including the naturalness of the human desire to know, the institutional and personal basis for the accumulation of knowledge, and the endorsement of realism against objectivism. Hoinski and Polansky emphasize the promise of Polanyi’s neo-Aristotelian framework, which argues that science is won through reflection on reality.


Back in the late 1950s, C.P. Snow famously defined science negatively by separating it from what it was not, namely literature. Such polarization, however, creates more problems than it solves. By contrast, the two co-editors of the book have adopted a dialectical approach to the subject, and to the numerous readers who keep asking themselves “what is science?”, we provide an answer from an early modern perspective, whereby “science” actually includes such various intellectual pursuits as history, poetry, occultism, or philosophy. Each essay illustrates one particular aspect of Shakespeare’s works and links science with the promise of the spectacular. This volume aims at bridging the gap between Renaissance literature and early modern science, focusing as it does on a complex intellectual territory, situated at the point of juncture between humanism, natural magic and craftsmanship. We assume that science and literature constantly interacted with one another, making clear the fact that what we now call “literature” and what we choose to see as “science” were not clearly separated in Shakespeare’s days but rather part of a common intellectual territory.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document