David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In this paper I shall be looking at the state of science before and after the 17th century especially with regard to the question of the nature of scientific knowledge, specifically scientific paradigms. I will argue that some of the major differences between modern science and pre-modern science are due to (i) methodological changes, (ii) the rise of paradigmatic monism in modern science as opposed to paradigmatic pluralism in pre-modern science, (iii) the integration of science with technology after the 17th century. These changes, I maintain, also redefine the role of scientific knowledge in society and culture, and bring in its wake certain problems and challenges, which in turn elicit different types of responses. Pre-modern science, I argue, are admirably suited to play a cultural and religious role, partly because of a lack of a pragmatic criterion of knowledge, and the emphasis on rational coherence. This makes enchantment of nature through science, possible. However, with the further evolution of science, especially the introduction of the experimental method and the emphasis on empiricism in the 17th century, scientific knowledge now has to conform to different criteria of knowledge -pragmatic in partleading to 'paradigmatic monism' and the consequent loss of enchantment in our conception of nature. The rise of the new science beginning in the 17th century thus brings in its wake a new set of epistemological and cultural challenges which were met with in different ways. I will then comment on the different types of responses made against the rise of the new science
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gili S. Drori (ed.) (2003). Science in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization. Stanford University Press.
F. Rochberg (2002). A Consideration of Babylonian Astronomy Within the Historiography of Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (4):661-684.
Dachun Liu & Yongmou Liu (2009). A Reflection on the Alternative Philosophy of Science. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 4 (4):576-588.
Vuk Uskoković (2010). Major Challenges for the Modern Chemistry in Particular and Science in General. Foundations of Science 15 (4):303-344.
Andrew Brennan (2004). The Birth of Modern Science: Culture, Mentalities and Scientific Innovation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 35 (2):199-225.
Peter Kosso (2002). The Omniscienter: Beauty and Scientific Understanding. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16 (1):39 – 48.
John Hedley Brooke & Ian Maclean (eds.) (2005). Heterodoxy in Early Modern Science and Religion. Oxford University Press.
Rein Vihalemm & Peeter Müürsepp (2007). Philosophy of Science in Estonia. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 38 (1):167 - 191.
Joseph Shieber (2009). Locke on Testimony: A Reexamination. History of Philosophy Quarterly 26 (1):21 - 41.
Alan Irwin & Brian Wynne (eds.) (1996). Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge University Press.
Ulrich Fiedeler (2011). When Does the Co-Evolution of Technology and Science Overturn Into Technoscience? Poiesis and Praxis 8 (2-3):83-101.
P. W. Bridgman, Philipp Frank & Gerald James Holton (eds.) (1971). Science and the Modern Mind. Freeport, N.Y.,Books for Libraries Press.
Erwin Schrödinger (1951/1996). Nature and the Greeks. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads7 ( #147,017 of 1,004,644 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #15,691 of 1,004,644 )
How can I increase my downloads?