TOWARDS A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Authors

  • Marcos Amatucci Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7443/problemata.v12i1.55358

Keywords:

Philosophy of Science, History of Philosophy of Science, Science methodology, Received view, Method

Abstract

In order to be accepted as scientific projects worth funding and/or as research papers worth publishing, scientists must, through sound methodological canons, that that piece of work “is Science”. The accepted methodological descriptions are, however, are often dated and committed with philosophical views of what Science is which are already deeply criticized and no longer accepted in the Philosophy of Science community. A critical history of Philosophy of Science is needed for clarifying what problems the adoption of a given method is likely to raise. This modest communication raises this problem and sketches a direction of such history.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Marcos Amatucci, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo

Doutorando em Filosofia pela PUC/SP

Professor de Epistemologia

References

Aristotle. (I-XV). Categories.

Bacon, F. (1984). Novum organum ou verdadeiras indicações acerca da interpretação da natureza; Nova Atlântida.

Beiser, F. C. (2015). Neo-Kantianism. In M. N. G. Forster, Kristin (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of German Philosophy in the Nineteenth century. Oxford: OUP.

Boudry, M., & Pigliucci, M. (2018). Science Unlimited?: The Challenges of Scientism: University of Chicago Press.

Carnap, R. (1966). Theory and Observation. In T. A.-K. McGrew, M.; Allhoff, F. (Ed.), Philosophy of Science - an historical anthology (pp. 329-343). London: Wiley-Blackwell.

Descartes, R. (1641). René Descartes: Meditations on first philosophy: With selections from the objections and replies: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

DeWitt, R. (2018). Worldviews: An introduction to the history and philosophy of science: John Wiley & Sons.

Heis, J. (2018). Neo-Kantianism. In E. N. Z. (ed.) (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Hume, D. (1739). A treatise of human nature. In: New York, NY, Barnes & Noble, 2005.

Kant, I. (1787). critique of pure reason (N. K. Smith, Trans.): Read Books Ltd, 2011.

Lancaster, J. A. (2019). Daniel McKaughan and Holly VandeWall, eds. The History and Philosophy of Science: A Reader. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2018. Pp. xxiii+ 1073. $49.95.

Laudan, L. (1983). The demise of the demarcation problem. In Physics, philosophy and psychoanalysis (pp. 111-127): Springer.

Matthews, M. R. (2014). Science teaching: The contribution of history and philosophy of science: Routledge.

McMullin, E. (1970). The history and philosophy of science: A taxonomy.

Passmore, J. (1966). A hundred years of philosophy. London: Duckworth & Co Ltd

Pigliucci, M. (2013). The demarcation problem. A (belated) response to Laudan. Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem, 9.

Plato. (142a–210d). Theaetetus (Vol. 142a–210d).

Popper, K. (2012). Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach: Oxford: Clarendon Press.–1979.–395 p.

Porta, M. A. G. (2005). Zurück zu Kant–Adolf Trendelenburg, la superación del idealismo y los orígenes de la filosofía contemporánea. Doispontos, Curitiba, São Carlos, 2(2), 35-59.

Quine, W. V. (1951). Main trends in recent philosophy: Two dogmas of empiricism. The philosophical review, 20-43.

Suppe, F. (1977). The search for philosophic understanding of scientific theories (Vol. 2).

Downloads

Published

2021-08-17 — Updated on 2022-08-09

Versions

Issue

Section

Papers