scholarly journals Spotkania Andrzeja Pelczara (1937–2010) z historią i filozofią nauki

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 167-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Kokowski

Artykuł przedstawia postać Andrzeja Pelczara (1937–2010): jego rodowód genealogiczny, szkicową biografię naukową, listę pełnionych funkcji publicznych oraz dorobek z historii i filozofii nauki na tle dokonań krakowskiego środowiska matematycznego, a także uaktualnia informacje na temat stanu liczbowego krakowskiego środowiska matematycznego i matematycznej szkoły warszawskiej. Andrzej Pelczar’s (1937–2010) meetings with the history and philosophy of science The article presents the character of Andrzej Pelczar (1937–2010): his genealogical pedigree, sketchy scientific biography, list of performed public functions, achievements in the history and philosophy of science against the achievements of the Kraków mathematical environment, and also it updates the information on the numerical state of the Kraków mathematical environment and Warsaw mathematical school.

1990 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-275
Author(s):  
William Bechtel

PsycCRITIQUES ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet R. Matthews

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-271
Author(s):  
Tamás Demeter

This paper sketches a recently emerging divide between two interpretations of Hume's methodology and philosophy of science. On the first interpretation Hume relies on an inductive methodology and provides a (Newtonian) dynamic theory of the mind, and his philosophy of science reflects this methodology. On the second, Hume relies on inferences to the best explanation via comparative analysis of instances, and offers an anatomy of the mind relying on a chemical and organic imagery. The paper also aspires to lean the reader's sympathies toward the latter interpretation while outlining some of its potential consequences for the character of Hume's psychology, the limits of associationism, and his empiricism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document