What Does History Matter to Philosophy of Science? The Concept of Replication and the Methodology of Experiments

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 513-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jutta Schickore
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Scientific Methodology ◽  
Philosophical Thought ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Matter ◽  
Replication Of Experiments

Abstract Scientists and philosophers generally agree that the replication of experiments is a key ingredient of good and successful scientific practice. “One-offs” are not significant; experiments must be replicable to be considered valid and important. But the term “replication” has been used in a number of ways, and it is therefore quite difficult to appraise the meaning and significance of replications. I consider how history may help – and has helped – with this task. I propose that: 1) Studies of past scientific episodes in historical context and of recent philosophical contributions to the discussion are heuristic tools for exploring and clarifying the meaning of that concept. 2) The analysis of the development of the methodological imperative of replication sheds light on the significance scientists have attached to it, thereby contributing further to the clarification of the concept. 3) The analysis of the history of philosophical thought about methods and scientific methodology helps understand why philosophers have not paid much attention to the analysis of the concept of replication.

scholarly journals ARSITEKTUR KOLONIAL BELANDA DI INDONESIA DALAM KONTEKS SEJARAH FILSAFAT DAN FILSAFAT ILMU

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 42
Author(s):  
Dimas Wihardyanto ◽  
Sudaryono Sudaryono
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Cultural Context ◽  
Industrial Revolution ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
East Indies ◽  
History Of ◽  
Way Of Thinking ◽  
Architectural Research ◽  
Dutch Colonial ◽  
The Way

Arsitektur merupakan salah satu produk budaya hasil pemikiran manusia yang mampu menggambarkan secara komprehensif bagaimana hubungan dirinya dengan konteks sosial maupun seting lingkungan yang ada. Tidak terkecuali arsitektur kolonial Belanda di Indonesia. Kolonialisasi di Indonesia terutama yang dilakukan oleh Belanda merupakan salah satu babak sejarah penting di Indonesia karena mampu merubah cara berfikir arsitektur di Hindia Belanda semakin modern mendekati yang terjadi di Barat. Pengaruh modernisme dalam arsitektur tersebut tentunya tidak dapat dilepaskan dari perkembangan cara berfikir masyarakat barat yang bertitik tolak dari cara memandang alam dan manusia melalui pendekatan kategorisasi dan analogi. Setelah melalui kurun waktu yang cukup panjang arsitektur kolonial Belanda di Indonesia akhirnya tidak dapat memaksakan penggunaan arsitektur barat secara penuh. Konteks sosial budaya serta seting lingkungan dan iklim yang berbeda akhirnya mampu mengajak para arsitek untuk mengedepankan cara berfikir yang bertitik tolak pada alam melalui pendekatan analogi alih-alih menonjolkan arsitektur barat sebagai simbol manusia modern melalui pendekatan kategorisasi. Kemunculan arsitektur Indis adalah salah satu buktinya. Selanjutnya melalui metode kajian literatur terhadap sejarah perkembangan filsafat barat, metodologi penelitian arsitektur, dan teori-teori mengenai arsitektur kolonial Belanda di Indonesia peneliti mencoba merunut dan merumuskan bagaimana Posisi keilmuan arsitektur kolonial Belanda di Indonesia dalam konteks sejarah filsafat dan filsafat ilmu. Hasil yang didapatkan dari penelitian ini adalah bahwasanya perkembangan arsitektur kolonial di Indonesia berawal dari cara berfikir dualisme dengan mengambil alam sebagai tidak tolak, kemudian beralih menjadi cara berfikir monisme dengan revolusi industri sebagai latar belakang, dan kemudian kembali ke cara berfikir dualisme dengan menempatkan alam sebagai titik tolak pada abad ke 20.DUTCH COLONIAL ARCHITECTURE IN INDONESIA IN THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF PHILOSOPHY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE                                                  Architecture is one of the cultural products of human thought that can to comprehensively describe how its relationship with the social context and the existing environmental settings. Dutch colonial architecture in Indonesia is no exception. Colonialism in Indonesia, especially those carried out by the Dutch, is one of the important historical phases in Indonesia because it can change the way of thinking architecture in the Dutch East Indies increasingly modern that is happening in the West. The influence of modernism in architecture indeed cannot be separated from the development of western society's way of thinking, which starts from the way of looking at nature and humans through a categorization and analogy approach. After a long period of time, Dutch colonial architecture in Indonesia finally could not force the full use of western architecture. The socio-cultural context and the different environmental and climatic settings were finally able to invite the architects to put forward the way of thinking that starts with nature through an analogy approach instead of highlighting western architecture as a symbol of modern humans through the categorization approach. The emergence of Indis architecture is one of the proofs. Furthermore, through the method of studying literature on the history of the development of western philosophy, architectural research methodology, and theories about Dutch colonial architecture in Indonesia researchers try to trace and formulate the scientific position of Dutch colonial architecture in Indonesia in the context of the history of philosophy and philosophy of science. The results obtained from this study are that the development of colonial architecture in Indonesia started from the way of thinking of dualism by taking nature as not rejecting, then turning into monism with the industrial revolution as a background, and then returning to the way of thinking of dualism by placing nature as a point starting in the 20th century.

scholarly journals Fossils with Feathers and Philosophy of Science

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (5) ◽  
pp. 840-851 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joyce C Havstad ◽  
N Adam Smith
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Thomas Kuhn ◽  
Karl Popper ◽  
Scientific Debate ◽  
Evolutionary Origins ◽  
Research Programmes ◽  
History Of

AbstractThe last half century of paleornithological research has transformed the way that biologists perceive the evolutionary history of birds. This transformation has been driven, since 1969, by a series of exciting fossil discoveries combined with intense scientific debate over how best to interpret these discoveries. Ideally, as evidence accrues and results accumulate, interpretive scientific agreement forms. But this has not entirely happened in the debate over avian origins: the accumulation of scientific evidence and analyses has had some effect, but not a conclusive one, in terms of resolving the question of avian origins. Although the majority of biologists have come to accept that birds are dinosaurs, there is lingering and, in some quarters, strident opposition to this view. In order to both understand the ongoing disagreement about avian origins and generate a prediction about the future of the debate, here we use a revised model of scientific practice to assess the current and historical state of play surrounding the topic of bird evolutionary origins. Many scientists are familiar with the metascientific scholars Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, and these are the primary figures that have been appealed to so far, in prior attempts to assess the dispute. But we demonstrate that a variation of Imre Lakatos’s model of progressive versus degenerative research programmes provides a novel and productive assessment of the debate. We establish that a refurbished Lakatosian account both explains the intractability of the dispute and predicts a likely outcome for the debate about avian origins. In short, here, we offer a metascientific tool for rationally assessing competing theories—one that allows researchers involved in seemingly intractable scientific disputes to advance their debates.

scholarly journals Iconoclasm and Imagination: Gaston Bachelard’s Philosophy of Technoscience

Human Studies ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hub Zwart
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Gaston Bachelard ◽  
Unique Position ◽  
Contemporary Science ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
History Of ◽  
Epistemological Obstacle ◽  
Mother Earth

Abstract Gaston Bachelard (1884–1962) occupies a unique position in the history of European thinking. As a philosopher of science, he developed a profound interest in genres of the imagination, notably poetry and novels. While emphatically acknowledging the strength, precision and reliability of scientific knowledge compared to every-day experience, he saw literary phantasies as important supplementary sources of insight. Although he significantly influenced authors such as Lacan, Althusser, Foucault and others, while some of his key concepts (“epistemological rupture,” “epistemological obstacle,” “technoscience”) are still widely used, his oeuvre tends to be overlooked. And yet, as I will argue, Bachelard’s extended series of books opens up an intriguing perspective on contemporary science. First, I will point to a remarkable duality that runs through Bachelard’s oeuvre. His philosophy of science consists of two sub-oeuvres: a psychoanalysis of technoscience, complemented by a poetics of elementary imagination. I will point out how these two branches deal with complementary themes: technoscientific artefacts and literary fictions, two realms of human experience separated by an epistemological rupture. Whereas Bachelard’s work initially entails a panegyric in praise of scientific practice, he becomes increasingly intrigued by the imaginary and its basic images (“archetypes”), such as the Mother Earth archetype.

scholarly journals Kuhn’s philosophy of science of early and transitional period: Paradigms and incommensurability

2018 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
pp. 69-103
Author(s):  
Nebojsa Lukic
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Formal Education ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Transitional Period ◽  
Original Definition ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
History Of ◽  
Conceptual Network ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Definition Of

Even though Thomas Kuhn was a physicist by formal education, he is better known for his achievements in philosophy of science than in science itself. He was primarily concerned with history of science and subjects such as development of science, growth of scientific knowledge, changes in science and others. In that sense Kuhn was focused on giving the correct description of scientific reality in human history, that is, on giving the description of the most relevant elements of scientific research. Kuhn claims that scientists base their research on paradigms which are the key factor in scientific practice overall. All other concepts of Kuhn?s philosophy - such as, for instance, normal science, revolutionary science, incommensurability of paradigms - gain their meaning in relation to the concept of a paradigm. However, the concept of a paradigm in its original definition was very problematic, which, later on, led Kuhn to make its meaning more precise. Hence, the task of this paper is to illuminate the nature of that central concept i.e. to determine the essential features of a paradigm in relation to the rest of the conceptual network of Kuhn?s theory, and therefore its role in science and in that conceptual network. At the same time, the meaning of all those elements of Kuhnian science which are in direct relation to the paradigm will be illuminated. I will restrict my research on early and transitional period of Kuhn?s creatorship, and I base this distinction on Sankey?s analysis. The difference between these two periods is determined by Kuhn?s thinking about the formulation of the thesis of incommensurability of paradigms. Accordingly, it is necessary to deal with definition of incommensurability, its division to types and Kuhn?s view on implications of incommensurability for science and its progress.

scholarly journals Book Review : Filsafat Ilmu dan Logika : Dialektika Perubahan (Philosophy of Science and Logic Dialectic of Change)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Safin Karunia Rojuli ◽  
Moses Glorino Rumambo Pandin
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Philosophical Thought ◽  
Know How ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Scientific Institutions ◽  
History Of ◽  
Introductory Discussion

This book was written based on the question "What and Why is the Philosophy of Science?". Until now, it seems that no one can stop the rapid progress of science. Recent history records science as a form of rational human thought with the results of various scientific disciplines and sub-disciplines. Accompanied by suitable methodological materials and buildings, it is well preserved in libraries or scientific institutions such as universities. The progress of science cannot be separated from every discovery that is useful for the advancement of human life. The book is perfect for a beginner who wants to study the philosophy of science and wants to know the basics of logic. Very helpful for someone who wants or will study philosophy of science. The content of the discussion that contains the history of philosophical thought to the history of methodology in modern science is beneficial for ordinary people who want to know how to develop science. By studying philosophy of science, we try to look again at a more radical and critical view of the history and development of this book. The book presents several philosophers in several periods and discusses the essays that have been written. This book contains seven chapters beginning with an introductory discussion of philosophy, several branches of science, the history of the development of philosophy, which has been packaged. In the following chapters, this book discusses the basics of logic, how to present the philosophy of science, to discuss the influence of philosophical thought on modernity.Reviewing the book entitled "Filsafat Ilmu dan Logika: Dialektika Perubahan (Philosophy of Science and Logic: Dialectics of Change)", the reviewer has several reasons he chose this book. Books are by the provisions and themes given by the philosophy of science lecturers. The purpose of reviewing this book is to provide a brief description based on the author's reading experience of the contents in the book. This paper is addressed to someone who will read this book.

Whewell, William (1794–1886)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Menachem Fisch
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Scientific Methodology ◽  
Mathematical Truth ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
New Era ◽  
History Of ◽  
Scientific Ideas

William Whewell’s two seminal works, History of the Inductive Science, from the Earliest to the Present Time (1837) and The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Founded upon their History (1840), began a new era in the philosophy of science. Equally critical of the British ‘sensationalist’ school, which founded all knowledge on experience, and the German Idealists, who based science on a priori ideas, Whewell undertook to survey the history of all known sciences in search of a better explanation of scientific discovery. His conclusions were as bold as his undertaking. All real knowledge, he argued, is ‘antithetical’, requiring mutually irreducible, ever-present, and yet inseparable empirical and conceptual components. Scientific progress is achieved not by induction, or reading-out theories from previously collected data, but by the imaginative ‘superinduction’ of novel hypotheses upon known but seemingly unrelated facts. He thus broke radically with traditional inductivism – and for nearly a century was all but ignored. In the Philosophy the antithetical structure of scientific theories and the hypothetico-deductive account of scientific discovery form the basis for novel analyses of scientific and mathematical truth and scientific methodology, critiques of rival philosophies of science, and an account of the emergence and refinement of scientific ideas.

Descriptive Turn in Epistemology

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 27-33
Author(s):  
Natalia I. Kuznetsova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
History Of ◽  
Methodological Standard ◽  
The One ◽  
Professional History ◽  
Real Practice ◽  
Science Epistemology

The article shows that cultural-historical epistemology erroneously puts forward the thesis of a global crisis in the sphere of modern epistemology and philosophy of science. The key error of such a diagnosis is rooted in the confusion of basic concepts. In the development of epistemological studies, the period of the last decades of the twentieth century, which was called the “descriptive turn”, is very important. In the philosophy of science, the task was set to reflect the real practice of scientific research. This has been successfully carried out in a number of works by Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Latour and others. The task of building universal norms of scientific research has faded into the background. In this regard, the subjects of "methodology of science", on the one hand, and "epistemology" and "philosophy of science", on the other hand, were distinguished. The formulation of norms and standards for scientific research has become the task of methodology. Describing scientific practice, including scientific revolutions, has become the task of the professional history of science. The philosophical understanding of the processes of historical evolution, the identification of the laws of the development of science has become the subject of the philosophy of science. Epistemology, in turn, is called upon to consider the phenomenon of knowledge not only in science, but also more broadly – in a variety of historical and cultural contexts. In modern studies in the field of epistemology and philosophy of science, case studies are important, as they provide invaluable empirical material for philosophical generalizations. As for the construction of universal standards for scientific work, such a task, as Feyerabend showed, seems to be impossible. Moreover, the universal methodological standard does not allow discovering the uniqueness of scientific research situations.

scholarly journals PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM OF KNOWLEDGE CLASSIFICATION: CLASSIFICATION THEORY POSTSTRUCTURALISM

2021 ◽  
pp. 279-290
Author(s):  
Сергей Александрович Гашков
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
Philosophical Problem ◽  
Classification Theory ◽  
Philosophical Thought ◽  
History Of ◽  
Knowledge Classification

В статье ставится вопрос о классификации знания как философской проблеме, и сопоставляются некоторые подходы, имеющие место в философии науки (Кедров, Мейен) с подходами, распространёнными во французской эпистемологии (Гобло, Мейерсон, Кангийем), и особенно «постструктурализме» второй половины ХХ в. (Барт, Деррида, Делёз, Лакан, Фуко, Касториадис). Автор приходит к выводу, что классификация в истории философии присутствует в нескольких связанных друг с другом смыслах: классификации наук, критического концепта «классификации» и классификации (периодизации) самой философской мысли. The article raises the question of the classification of knowledge as a philosophical problem, and compares some of the approaches that take place in the philosophy of science (Kedrov, Meyen) with the approaches prevalent in French epistemology (Goblot, Meyerson, Canguilhem), and especially «poststructuralism@ of the second half of the twentieth century (Barthes, Derrida, Deleuze, Lacan, Foucault, Castoriadis). The author comes to the conclusion that the classification in the history of philosophy is present in several interconnected senses: the classification of sciences, the critical concept of «classification» and the classification (periodization) of philosophical thought itself.

Philosophic Pride

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Brooke
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Intellectual Life ◽  
Marcus Aurelius ◽  
Hugo Grotius ◽  
History Of ◽  
Early Modern Era ◽  
Modern Era

This is the first full-scale look at the essential place of Stoicism in the foundations of modern political thought. Spanning the period from Justus Lipsius's Politics in 1589 to Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Emile in 1762, and concentrating on arguments originating from England, France, and the Netherlands, the book considers how political writers of the period engaged with the ideas of the Roman and Greek Stoics that they found in works by Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. The book examines key texts in their historical context, paying special attention to the history of classical scholarship and the historiography of philosophy. The book delves into the persisting tension between Stoicism and the tradition of Augustinian anti-Stoic criticism, which held Stoicism to be a philosophy for the proud who denied their fallen condition. Concentrating on arguments in moral psychology surrounding the foundations of human sociability and self-love, the book details how the engagement with Roman Stoicism shaped early modern political philosophy and offers significant new interpretations of Lipsius and Rousseau together with fresh perspectives on the political thought of Hugo Grotius and Thomas Hobbes. The book shows how the legacy of the Stoics played a vital role in European intellectual life in the early modern era.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document