Naturalized Philosophy of Science, History of Science, and the Internal/External Debate

1986 ◽  
Vol 1986 (1) ◽  
pp. 258-268
Author(s):  
Bonnie Tamarkin Paller
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Science History ◽  
History Of ◽  
External Debate

scholarly journals „Wykazy czasopism MNiSW 2017 i 2019”, „ICI Journal Master List 2014–2017” a polskie czasopisma z historii nauki, historii, filozofii nauki oraz naukoznawstwa

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 505-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Kokowski
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Science History ◽  
Science Of Science ◽  
Master List ◽  
Program Support ◽  
History Of ◽  
Short Time

W artykule przedstawiono wyniki ewaluacji czasopism z historii nauki, historii, filozofii nauki oraz naukoznawstwa na podstawie „Wykazu czasopism MNiSW 2017”, „Wykazu czasopism MNiSW 2019” oraz „ICI Journal Master List 2014–2017”. Dodano także komentarz do tych wyników. Zwrócono uwagę na następujące fakty: a) fakt istnienia ujemnej korelacji między oceną czasopisma w „Wykazie czasopism MNiSW 2019” a oceną czasopisma na „ICI Journal Master List 2014–2017” dla czasopism z historii i historii nauki; b) fakt, że obecność czasopisma w DOAJ nie podniosła oceny ministerialnej czasopisma; c) fakt, że ocena czasopisma w bazie danych Scopus nie wpłynęła w znaczący sposób na wzrost oceny ministerialnej: ocena ta zależy od dyscypliny i subdyscypliny; d) fakt, że czasopisma z listy programu ministerialnego „Wsparcie dla czasopism naukowych 2019–2020” (WCN 2019–2020) oraz ERIH+ otrzymały od 20 do 70 punktów; ich ministerialna ocena zależy od dyscypliny i subdyscypliny. Ponadto wyrażono nadzieję, że dla dobra polskiej nauki w krótkim czasie usunięte zostaną pewne błędy „Wykazu czasopism MNiSW 2019”, gdyż niektóre czasopisma otrzymały nieadekwatne oceny (stwierdzenie to wynika z porównania dokonań czasopism, w tym wskaźników bibliometrycznych). “Lists of journals of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland 2017 & 2019”, “ICI Journal Master List 2014–2017”, and the Polish journals on the history of science, history, philosophy of science and science of science Abstract The article presents the results of the evaluation of the Polish journals from the history of science, history, philosophy of science, and science of science, based on the “List of journals of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland 2017 & 2019” and “ICI Journal Master List 2014–2017”. A comment has also been added to these results. The following facts were noted: a) the fact that there is a negative correlation between the journal’s rating in the “List of journals MNiSW 2019” and the journal’s ratings in the “ICI Journal Master List 2014–2017” for journals from the history and history of science; b) the fact that the presence of the journal in the DOAJ does not raise the ministerial rating of the journal; c) the fact that the evaluation of the journal in the Scopus database has not significantly affected the increase in the ministerial rating: the rating depends on the discipline and sub-discipline; d) the fact that journals from the ministerial program “Support for scientific journals 2019–2020” (WCN 2019–2020) and ERIH+ received 20 to 70 points; their ministerial ratings depend on discipline and sub-discipline. In addition, it was hoped that for the good of Polish science, some errors of the “List of journals of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Polish Republic 2019” would be removed in a short time, as some magazines received too low marks (this statement results from a comparison of journals’ achievements, including bibliometric indicators).

What is a scientific instrument, now?

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 453-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liba Taub
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Smithsonian Institution ◽  
Scientific Instrument ◽  
Scientific Instruments ◽  
Classic Article ◽  
The Future ◽  
History Of

Abstract In 1990, Deborah Jean Warner, a curator at the Smithsonian Institution, published her now-classic article ‘What is a scientific instrument, when did it become one, and why?’. These questions were prompted by practical curatorial considerations: what was she supposed to collect for her museum? Today, we are still considering questions of what we collect for the future, why, and how. These questions have elicited some new and perhaps surprising answers since the publication of Warner’s article, sometimes – but not only – as a reflection of changing technologies and laboratory practices, and also as a result of changes in those disciplines that study science, including history of science and philosophy of science. In focusing attention on meanings associated with scientific instrument collections, and thinking about what objects are identified as scientific instruments, I consider how definitions of instruments influence what is collected and preserved.

scholarly journals The Origins of the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology

2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Enros
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
University Of Toronto ◽  
History Of ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Programs Of Study ◽  
The University ◽  
Phd Programs

An effort to establish programs of study in the history of science took place at the University of Toronto in the 1960s. Initial discussions began in 1963. Four years later, the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology was created. By the end of 1969 the Institute was enrolling students in new MA and PhD programs. This activity involved the interaction of the newly emerging discipline of the history of science, the practices of the University, and the perspectives of Toronto’s faculty. The story of its origins adds to our understanding of how the discipline of the history of science was institutionalized in the 1960s, as well as how new programs were formed at that time at the University of Toronto.

scholarly journals Using History as Evidence in Philosophy of Science: A Methodological Critique

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
James W. McAllister
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Qualitative Approaches ◽  
History Of

Abstract This article offers a critical review of past attempts and possible methods to test philosophical models of science against evidence from history of science. Drawing on methodological debates in social science, I distinguish between quantitative and qualitative approaches. I show that both have their uses in history and philosophy of science, but that many writers in this domain have misunderstood and misapplied these approaches, and especially the method of case studies. To test scientific realism, for example, quantitative methods are more effective than case studies. I suggest that greater methodological clarity would enable the project of integrated history and philosophy of science to make renewed progress.

scholarly journals The Body of Sound: Sounding out the History of Science

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holger Schulze
Keyword(s):  
History Of Science ◽  
The Body ◽  
Western History ◽  
Science History ◽  
Hermann Von Helmholtz ◽  
Material Appearance ◽  
Long Time ◽  
History Of ◽  
Anthropology Of The Senses ◽  
Lower Material

Sound affects and pervades our body in a physical as well as a phenomenological sense: a notion that may sound fairly trivial today. But for a long time in Western history ‘sound’ was no scientific entity. It was looked upon merely as the lower, material appearance of truly higher forces: of more ephemeral, angel-, spirit- or godlike structures – and later of compositional knowledge. To be interested in sound was to be defamed as being unscientific, noncompositional, unmanly. Which steps were taken historically that gradually gave sound the character of a scientific entity? This article moves along recent science history: since the nineteenth century when the physicality of sound and later the corporeality of sonic experiences were first discovered and tentatively described. Exemplary studies from the science history of acoustics, musicology and anthropology of the senses are analysed and restudied – from Hermann von Helmholtz to Michel Serres. Even today, we may ask ourselves: What would an auditorily-founded research be like? Could there be a field of sensory research – via sensing sound?

Scientific Change

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anouk Barberousse
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Scientific Change ◽  
General Question ◽  
Scientific Enterprise ◽  
History Of ◽  
Dynamics Of Science

How should we think of the dynamics of science? What are the relationships between an earlier theory and the theory that has superseded it? This chapter introduces the heated debates on the nature of scientific change, at the intersection of philosophy of science and history of science, and their bearing on the more general question of the rationality of the scientific enterprise. It focuses on the issue of the continuity or discontinuity of scientific change and the various versions of the incommensurability thesis one may uphold. Historicist views are balanced against nagging questions regarding scientific progress (Is there such a thing? If so, how should it be defined?), the causes of scientific change (Are they to be found within scientific method itself?), and its necessity (Is the history of scientific developments an argument in favor of realism, or could we have had entirely different sciences?).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document