David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Russian Studies in Philosophy 20 (1):40-82 (1981)
Work on the methodology of natural science involves serious difficulties over and above those encountered in any other aspect of natural science or of philosophy. Reference is to the obvious fact that in discussing methodological questions of, for example, physics, so as to be precise, it is not enough to know physics: it is also necessary to familiarize oneself with certain branches of philosophy, the history of science, and so forth. Furthermore, a professional cannot limit himself to "general familiarity" with the material. He has to know the details and, if possible, the entire literature on the question under discussion. However, the volume of literature on physics has, within the memory of the author alone — that is, over approximately forty years — multiplied dozens of times. I cannot say how great has been the increase in the quantity of information on the methodology of natural science and related disciplines. But what is important is that the amount of material that has accumulated to date is enormous. Some notion of the scale of the work may be gained from the abstract journal Obshchestvennye nauki za rubezhom. Seriia 8. Naukovedenie. For example, no. 1 for 1980 contained abstracts of 72 articles and books; this amounts to over 400 titles a year . When we add to this the Soviet literature and the need to include material from many years, we arrive at a figure of four digits. Naturally, only a very small portion of the literature is made use of in any particular piece of work, but it is impossible to know beforehand which items will be specifically needed
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Meinard Kuhlmann & Wolfgang Pietsch (2012). What Is and Why Do We Need Philosophy of Physics? Journal for General Philosophy of Science 43 (2):209-214.
A. D' Abro (1950). The Evolution of Scientific Thought From Newton to Einstein. [New York]Dover Publications.
A. D'Abro (1927). The Evolution of Scientific Thought From Newton to Einstein. New York, Boni & Liveright.
Brigitte Falkenburg (2012). Pragmatic Unification, Observation and Realism in Astroparticle Physics. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 43 (2):327-345.
Kenneth Bausch (2002). New Methods for Streamlining Theory Building. World Futures 58 (2 & 3):229 – 240.
Wolfgang Schreier (1995). Aus der Frühzeit der (Deutschen) Physikalischen Gesellschaft: Gründung, Struktur, Interdisziplinarität. NTM International Journal of History and Ethics of Natural Sciences, Technology and Medicine 3 (1):23-34.
Armand Lowinger (1941). The Methodology of Pierre Duhem. New York, Columbia University Press.
M. Gitterman (1981). Qualitative Analysis of Physical Problems. Academic Press.
W. B. Bonnor (1969). Status of General Relativity. Guernsey, C.I.]F. Hodgson.
Simon Y. Berkovich (1986). Mutual Synchronization in a Network of Digital Clocks as the Key Cellular Automation Mechanism of Nature: Computational Model of Fundamental Physics. Synopsis.
Karl Rogers (2005). On the Metaphysics of Experimental Physics. Palgrave Macmillan.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-08-27
Total downloads1 ( #507,709 of 1,679,307 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #183,793 of 1,679,307 )
How can I increase my downloads?