Graduate studies at Western
Synthese 83 (2):293 - 300 (1990)
|Abstract||I discuss two questions: (1) would Duhem have accepted the thesis of the continuity of scientific methodology? and (2) to what extent is the Oxford tradition of classification/subalternation of sciences continuous with early modern science? I argue that Duhem would have been surprised by the claim that scientific methodology is continuous; he expected at best only a continuity of physical theories, which he was trying to isolate from the perpetual fluctuations of methods and metaphysics. I also argue that the evidence does not support the conclusion that early modern doctrines about mathematics and physics are continuous with the subalternation of sciences from Grosseteste, Bacon, and the theologians of fourteenth-century Oxford. The official and dominant context for early modern scientific methodology seems to have been progressive Thomism, and early modern thinkers seem to have pitted themselves against it.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Yorick Wilks (1990). Christopher Clavius and the Classification of Sciences. Synthese 83 (2):293-300.
Steven J. Livesey (1990). Science and Theology in the Fourteenth Century: The Subalternate Sciences in Oxford Commentaries on the Sentences. Synthese 83 (2):273 - 292.
Klaus Petrus (1996). Naturgemässe Klassifikation Und Kontinuität Wissenschaft Und Geschichte. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 27 (2):307 - 323.
Matt L. Drabek (2010). Interactive Classification and Practice in the Social Sciences. Poroi 6 (2):62-80.
Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen (2006). Interdisciplinarity and Peirce's Classification of the Sciences: A Centennial Reassessment. Perspectives on Science 14 (2):127-152.
Andrew Lugg (1990). Pierre Duhem's Conception of Natural Classification. Synthese 83 (3):409 - 420.
Peter Anstey & Alberto Vanzo (2012). The Origins of Early Modern Experimental Philosophy. Intellectual History Review 22 (4):499-518.
Roger Ariew & Peter Barker (1986). Duhem on Maxwell: A Case-Study in the Interrelations of History of Science and Philosophy of Science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:145 - 156.
Karl Pearson (1957/2004). The Grammar of Science. Dover Publications.
Richard Kenneth Atkins (2006). Restructuring the Sciences: Peirce's Categories and His Classifications of the Sciences. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 42 (4):483-500.
Milena Ivanova (2010). Pierre Duhem's Good Sense as a Guide to Theory Choice. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (1):58-64.
Miquel Forcada (2006). Ibn Bajja and the Classification of the Sciences in Al-Andalus. Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 16 (2):287-307.
Raymond Frank Piper (1929). The Fields and Methods of Knowledge. New York, A.A. Knopf, Inc..
Daniel Garber & Steven M. Nadler (eds.) (2006). Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads3 ( #213,976 of 738,687 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,778 of 738,687 )
How can I increase my downloads?