David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
A good way of characterizing what is usually called the 17th-century “revolution of modern science” is to focus on Galileo Galilei’s theory of explanation. As is well known, he set aside three of the four Aristotelian causes (material, formal and final causes) in order to base all sound scientific explanations in terms of efficient causes. In the second half of the 19th century a new scientific revolution occurred, with Darwin’s theory of evolution. As it has been stated repeatedly, Darwinism also has something to do with the abandoning of teleology in science, as speciation is explained without any appeal to final causes. But in the last quarter of the 19th century a third scientific revolution occured, this time in the social sciences. Many philosophers of science fail to notice or understand this intellectual event. This third scientific revolution is usually called the “marginalist revolution.” The transformation of political economy into pure economics, and progressively, into mathematical economics had at least two distinctive features. First, this revolution broke out simultaneously but independently in three different European countries: with Carl Menger (1840- 1921) in Austria, with William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882) in England, and with Léon Walras (1834- 1910), who, in 1870, was the first to hold the Chair of Political Economy at the University of..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||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
Gisèle Chevalier & Richard Hudson (2001). The Use of Intentional Language in Scientific Articles in Finance. Journal of Economic Methodology 8 (2):203-228.
Similar books and articles
Georg Erber, The Principle of Greatest Happiness in Western Economic Thought and its Relation to Buddhist Economics.
Krystyna Gorniak-Kocikowska (1996). The Computer Revolution and the Problem of Global Ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (2):177-190.
Xiang Chen (1988). Reconstruction of the Optical Revolution: Lakatos Vs. Laudan. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:103 - 109.
William Goodwin (2007). Scientific Understanding After the Ingold Revolution in Organic Chemistry. Philosophy of Science 74 (3):386-408.
Gary Hatfield (1996). Was the Scientific Revolution Really a Revolution in Science? In Jamil Ragep & Sally Ragep (eds.), Tradition, Transmission, Transformation. Brill 489–525.
Carolin Früh (2012). Göttliche Weltökonomie, Perspektiven der Wissenschaftlichen Revolution Vom 15. Bis Zum 17. Jahrhundert (Divine World Economy: Perspectives of the Scientific Revolution From the 15th to the 17th Century) by Dieter Groh. [REVIEW] Zygon 47 (1):240-241.
Paul Hoyningen-Huene (2008). Thomas Kuhn and the Chemical Revolution. Foundations of Chemistry 10 (2):101-115.
F. A. Muller (2011). Reflections on the Revolution at Stanford. Synthese 183 (1):87-114.
Michael Moehler & Geoffrey Brennan (2010). Neoclassical Economics. In Mark Bevir (ed.), Encyclopedia of Political Theory. SAGE Publications
Added to index2009-02-27
Total downloads32 ( #108,702 of 1,780,192 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #166,601 of 1,780,192 )
How can I increase my downloads?