scholarly journals The Berlin Group and the Society for Scientific Philosophy

2021 ◽  
pp. 118-126
Author(s):  
Nikolay Milkov
Synthese ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
László Kocsis ◽  
Adam Tamas Tuboly

AbstractOur main goal in this paper is to present and scrutinize Reichenbach’s own naturalism in our contemporary context, with special attention to competing versions of the concept. By exploring the idea of Reichenbach’s naturalism, we will argue that he defended a liberating, therapeutic form of naturalism, meaning that he took scientific philosophy (or philosophy of nature, Naturphilosophie) to be a possible cure for bad old habits and traditional ways of philosophy. For Reichenbach, naturalistic scientific philosophy was a well-established form of liberation. We do not intend to suggest that Reichenbach acted as an inventor of naturalism; nonetheless, invoking the term and the idea of ‘naturalism’ is more than a simple rhetorical strategy for rehabilitating Reichenbach as a forerunner of this field. We think that his ideas can make a valuable contribution to contemporary debates, and that he presents an interesting case among the other scientifically oriented proponents of his time. After presenting a short reconstruction of the meaning of naturalism—or, more appropriately, naturalisms—in order to be able to correctly situate Reichenbach within his own as well as a systematic context, we discuss Reichenbach’s naturalism against the background of his scientific philosophy, his views on the relation of common-sense knowledge to science, and his efforts at popularization. To delve deeper into this topic, we present a case study to show how Reichenbach argued that in both scientific and philosophical discussions (assuming their naturalistic continuity), it is necessary to move from the request and value of truth to probability. And, finally, we argue that the liberation of knowledge and nature was a socio-political program for Reichenbach, who talked about his own scientific philosophy as “a crusade.” By emphasizing this aspect of Reichenbach’s naturalism, we may be in a better position to situate him in the history of analytic philosophy in general, and in the yet-to-be-written narrative of the naturalistic movement in particular.


1988 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Suppes

In his published work and even more in conversations, Tarski emphasized what he thought were important philosophical aspects of his work. The English translation of his more philosophical papers [56m] was dedicated to his teacher Tadeusz Kotarbiński, and in informal discussions of philosophy he often referred to the influence of Kotarbiński. Also, the influence of Leśniewski, his dissertation adviser, is evident in his early papers. Moreover, some of his important papers of the 1930s were initially given to philosophical audiences. For example, the famous monograph on the concept of truth ([33m], [35b]) was first given as two lectures to the Logic Section of the Philosophical Society in Warsaw in 1930. Second, his paper [33], which introduced the concepts of ω-consistency and ω-completeness as well as the rule of infinite induction, was first given at the Second Conference of the Polish Philosophical Society in Warsaw in 1927. Also [35c] was based upon an address given in 1934 to the conference for the Unity of Science in Prague; [36] and [36a] summarize an address given at the International Congress of Scientific Philosophy in Paris in 1935. The article [44a] was published in a philosophical journal and widely reprinted in philosophical texts. This list is of course not exhaustive but only representative of Tarski's philosophical interactions as reflected in lectures given to philosophical audiences, which were later embodied in substantial papers. After 1945 almost all of Tarski's publications and presentations are mathematical in character with one or two minor exceptions. This division, occurring about 1945, does not, however, indicate a loss of interest in philosophical questions but is a result of Tarski's moving to the Department of Mathematics at Berkeley. There he assumed an important role in the development of logic within mathematics in the United States.


Mind ◽  
1882 ◽  
Vol os-VII (28) ◽  
pp. 461-495
Author(s):  
FRANCIS ELLINGWOOD ABBOT

Afkaruna ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Syamsul Anwar

This article addresses critical ideas about constructing scientific philosophy within the Muhammadiyah and ‘Aisyiyah Higher Learning Institutions (PTMA) circles through the concept of integrating Al-Islam and Kemuhammadiyahan (Islam and Muhammadiyah Principles), abbreviated as AIK, into the process of developing knowledge and science. Thus, the author provides a broad definition of AIK and distinguishes it into three main aspects. In the next step, the author explains two reasons for developing scientific philosophy in PTMA, including internal reasons in Muhammadiyah and Islam and external ones related to the development of modern science. Consequently, two approaches can be applied to integrate AIK into scientific development through objective and subjective approaches. In definition, the objective approach is a way of dealing with the issues through analyzing and re-building the structure of science it including paradigm (ontology), theories and methods (epistemology), and applications (axiology). In contrast, the subjective approach is the enrichment of the scientist through considering science and religion as complementary instead of contradictory.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gustavo E. Romero

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 227-234
Author(s):  
WILLIAM GRUEN

Polylogos ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (№ 4 (18)) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Mikhail Loktionov

Considering the philosophical heritage of Alexander Bogdanov, the author focuses on the aspect of the theory of knowledge, which passes through all the work of the famous philosopher and revolutionary. Doubts about the possibility of an exhaustive knowledge of the surrounding reality are also visible in Bogdanov’s earliest works. An attempt to build a new approach to human knowledge, having rinked him with activity experience, was undertaken by him in his main philosophical work, “Empiriomonism”. Standing on the positions of positivism as a “scientific” philosophy, Bogdanov tried to substantiate the dynamics of the public process, while remaining at the Marxist platform. The further development of his ideas led to the creation of a “universal organizational science” – tectology, which, in his opinion, has already passed beyond philosophy and was not only science, but also methodology of knowledge, as well as the style of scientific thinking, to which science, initially not realizing this, always sought. Thus, studying the legacy of Bogdanov, we see the development of views on the ideas of knowledge in the Russian philosophy of the beginning of the XXth century.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document