Isabelle  Stengers. The Invention of Modern Science. Translated by, Daniel  Smith. (Theory Out of Bounds, 19.) [iii] + 185 pp., index. Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press, 2000. $19.95 (paper).

Isis ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 359-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Fuller
Keyword(s):  
Modern Science ◽  
University Of Minnesota ◽  
Isabelle Stengers ◽  
Smith Theory

scholarly journals WHITEHEADO METAFIZINĖ ONTOLOGIJA IR I. PRIGOGINE’O MOKSLINĖ ONTOLOGIJA TEORINĖS MOKSLO KONCEPCIJOS POŽIŪRIU

Problemos ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rein Vihalemm
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Philosophy Of Chemistry ◽  
Ontological Approach ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Science Philosophy ◽  
Theoretical Conception ◽  
Isabelle Stengers ◽  
Scientific Ontology

Whiteheado ir Prigogine’o mokslo filosofines koncepcijas jungia tai, kad juos abu domina ontologija, grindžiama modernaus mokslo duomenimis. Mokslo filosofija ontologinį požiūrį, ypač tokį kaip Whiteheado metafizinis mąstymas, paprastai laiko spekuliatyviu, todėl vengtinu. Tačiau Ilya Prigogine’as ir Isabelle Stengers į Whiteheado metafiziką žvelgė kaip į kosmologiją ir vertino ją už tai, kad, būdama ambicingiausias, tegu spekuliatyvus, gamtos filosofijos projektas, ji vis dėlto nėra nei nukreipta prieš mokslą, nei siekia supriešinti filosofiją ir dabarties mokslą. Whiteheadas kritikavo klasikinį mokslą, tačiau netapatino jo su mokslu bendrąja prasme ir tyrimo sričių bei siekiamų tikslų požiūriu nepripažino principinio skirtumo tarp mokslo ir filosofijos. Pasak Prigogine’o ir Stengers, Whiteheado filosofija turėtų būti vertinama kaip Prigogine’o ne-klasikinio mokslo pirmtakė. Toks požiūris suteikia naują turinį Whiteheado spekuliacijoms. Prigogine’o ne-klasikinės fizikos koncepcijos atspirties taškas yra chemija. Šiame straipsnyje Prigogine’o koncepcija nagrinėjama chemijos filosofijos siūlomos teorinės mokslo sampratos požiūriu. Iš tikrųjų nei Prigogine’as ir Stengers, nei Whiteheadas nepateikė teorinės mokslo koncepcijos. Tačiau straipsnyje teigiama, kad būtent teorinė mokslo samprata duoda raktą, padedantį atrakinti ne vieną mokslo filosofijos, mokslo bendrąja prasme, taip pat ir Prigogine’o ne-klasikinio mokslo keliamą klausimą. Autorius simpatizuoja Prigogine’o optimizmui, kad mokslas išsilaisvino iš mito, tačiau, autoriaus požiūriu, šis optimizmas visgi klaidina. Gali susidaryti įspūdis, kad ne-klasikinis mokslas neturi nieko ben dra su idealizacijomis, kad jis nėra vien tyrimo būdas, priklausantis nuo konkrečių reikalavimų ir tikslų, kad naujasis mokslas iš tikrųjų supras pasaulį „tokį, koks jis yra“, kad net vadinamojo žmogaus pasaulio problemos (pvz., etikos) taps iš principo moksliškai suprantamos. Tačiau jei ne-klasikinis mokslas gebėtų atsikratyti klasikinio mokslo mito, tai vienintelė skirtybė būtų ta, kad jis netapatintų mokslinio pasaulio vaizdo ir moksliškai sumodeliuotos realybės su pasauliu, „koks jis yra“ iš tikrųjų. Pagrindiniai žodžiai: ne-klasikinis mokslas, chemijos filosofija, Prigogine’o mokslinė ontologija, teorinis mokslo modelis, Whiteheado metafizinė ontologija.Whitehead’s Metaphysical Ontology and I. Prigogine’s Scientific Ontology: From a Point of View of a Theoretical Conception of Science Rein Vihalemm SummaryWhitehead’s and Prigogine’s philosophies of science are similar in this respect that they both are interested in ontology built in the light of modern science. This kind of ontological approach, especially Whitehead’s metaphysical reasoning is usually regarded as speculative which should be avoided in philosophy of science. Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers appreciated, however, Whitehead’s metaphysics as cosmology in that being the most ambitious attempt to elaborate a philosophy of nature that, although speculative, is not directed against science or towards separation of philosophy from the actual science. Although Whitehead criticized the classical science, he did not identify it with science in general and did not acknowledge the respective domains and tasks of science and philosophy as distinct of principle from each other. According to Prigogine and Stengers Whitehead’s philosophy was somewhat the forerunner of Prigogine’s non-classical science which gives a new content to the speculations of Whitehead. Chemistry was a starting point of Prigogine’s non-classical physical theory. In the present paper Prigogine’s conception of non-classical science is examined from the point of view of a theoretical conception of science elaborated in the context of philosophy of chemistry. Prigogine and Stengers, as well as Whitehead, have not really presented a theoretical conception of  science. It is argued that the latter, however, offers a key for examining various issues in philosophy of science and understanding science in general, including Prigogine’s non-classical science. Appreciating Prigogine’s optimism concerning the chances of science that has liberated itself from the myth, the author still finds that this optimism can also be misleading as it can create a false impression that this new science does not deal with idealizations any more, that it is not a means of inquiry resulting from special requirements and aims, but will really understand the world “as it is” to the point that the problems of so called human world, including those of, e.g., ethics would be, in principle, scientifically understandable. In fact, however, if non-classical science manages rid itself from the myth of classical science, the only change will be that it does not equate the scientific picture of world and scientifically modelled reality with the real world “as it is”. Keywords: non-classical science, philosophy of chemistry, Prigogine’s scientific ontology, theoretical model of science, Whitehead’s metaphysical ontology.

The dental patient at the University of Minnesota: A characterization

1968 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 420-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
JM Grewe ◽  
RL Gorlin ◽  
LH Meskin
Keyword(s):  
University Of Minnesota ◽  
Dental Patient ◽  
The University

The Effects of Presentation on Noise and Dental Appliances on Speech

1981 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-151
Author(s):  
Lillian Glass ◽  
Sharon R. Garber ◽  
T. Michael Speidel ◽  
Gerald M. Siegel ◽  
Edward Miller
Keyword(s):  
Southern California ◽  
University Of Southern California ◽  
University Of Minnesota ◽  
School Of Medicine ◽  
Southern California School ◽  
School Of Dentistry ◽  
The University

An omission in the Table of Contents, December JSHR, has occurred. Lillian Glass, Ph.D., at the University of Southern California School of Medicine and School of Dentistry, was a co-author of the article "The Effects of Presentation on Noise and Dental Appliances on Speech" along with Sharon R. Garber, T. Michael Speidel, Gerald M. Siegel, and Edward Miller of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

The Rise of Early Modern Science

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toby E. Huff
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Early Modern Science

Thomas Fiutak, University of Minnesota

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fatina Whitaker
Keyword(s):  
University Of Minnesota
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document