Search results for 'Classification of sciences' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1. Giovanni Pinna, Michael T. Ghiselin, California Academy of Sciences & Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano (1996). Biology as History Papers From International Conferences Sponsored by the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco and the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale in Milan. Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali E Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. Harry Austryn Wolfson (1925). The Classification of Sciences in Medieval Jewish Philosophy. Hebrew Union College.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  37
    James A. Weisheipl (1965). Classification of the Sciences in Medieval Thought. Mediaeval Studies 27 (1):54-90.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  4. Herbert Spencer (1864). The Classification of the Sciences to Which Are Added Reasons for Dissenting From the Philosophy of M. Comte. Williams and Norgate.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  5. Jaime Nubiola (2005). The Classification of the Sciences and Cross-Disciplinarity. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 41 (2):271-282.
    In a world of ever growing specialization, the idea of a unity of science is commonly discarded, but cooperative work involving cross-disciplinary points of view is encouraged. The aim of this paper is to show with some textual support that Charles S. Peirce not only identified this paradoxical situation a century ago, but he also mapped out some paths for reaching a successful solution. A particular attention is paid to Peirce's classification of the sciences and to his conception (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  10
    Roger Ariew (1990). Christopher Clavius and the Classification of Sciences. Synthese 83 (2):293 - 300.
    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 (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  10
    Yorick Wilks (1990). Christopher Clavius and the Classification of Sciences. Synthese 83 (2):293-300.
    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 (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  18
    Miquel Forcada (2006). Ibn Bajja and the Classification of the Sciences in Al-Andalus. Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 16 (2):287-307.
    Coinciding with the scientific flourishing of the 5th / 11th century, which was favoured by the cultural policy of the Andalusi kingdoms ( muluk al-tawa'if ), Abu ‘ Umar ibn ‘ Abd al-Barr, Ibn Hazm and Sa‘ id al-Andalusi all dealt with the classification of the sciences in many works that are already known. Ibn Bajja began his career at the end of this period. In his glosses to al-Farabi’s commentary to the Isagoge he wrote a text on (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  9.  9
    Enrico Berti (2014). The Aristotelian Classification of the Sciences in Peter of Abano. Trans/Form/Ação 37 (3):17-32.
    La classificazione delle scienze di Pietro d'Abano costituisce un'interessante riformulazione della classificazione analoga, proposta da Aristotele in Metaph. VI, e della teoria degli abiti dianoetici, proposta da Aristotele in Eth. Nic. VI. Come risulta dal Conciliator per quanto concerne la medicina e dal Lucidator per quanto concerne l'astronomia, Pietro segue la classificazione aristotelica e le interpretazioni che di essa erano state date nel medioevo , aggiungendovi come contributo originale l'introduzione di una parte pratica sia nella medicina che nell'astronomia , dove (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  33
    Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen (2006). Interdisciplinarity and Peirce's Classification of the Sciences: A Centennial Reassessment. Perspectives on Science 14 (2):127-152.
    : This paper discusses the American scientist and philosopher Charles S. Peirce's (1839–1914) classification of the sciences from the contemporary perspective of interdisciplinary studies. Three theses are defended: (1) Studies on interdisciplinarity pertain to the intermediate class of Peirce's classification of all science, the sciences of review (retrospective science), ranking below the sciences of discovery (heuretic sciences) and above practical science (the arts). (2) Scientific research methods adopted by interdisciplinary inquiries are cross-categorial. Making them (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. Beverley Kent (1987). Charles S. Peirce: Logic and the Classification of the Sciences. Mcgill-Queen's University Press.
    C.S. Peirce, the American philosopher and a principal figure in the development of the modern study of semiotics, struggled, mostly during his later years, to work out a systematic method for classifying sciences. By doing this, he hoped to define more clearly the various tasks of these sciences by showing how their individual effects are interrelated and how these effects, considered in their interrelations, establish pragmatic meanings for each individual science. Much of his work was centered on the (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  12. Ion Tănăsescu (forthcoming). The Intentionality of Sensation and the Problem of Classification of Philosophical Sciences in Brentano’s Empirical Psychology. Axiomathes:1-21.
    In the well-known intentionality quote of his Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, Brentano characterises the mental phenomena through the following features: the intentional inexistence of an object, the relation to a content, and the direction toward an object. The text argues that this characterisation is not general because the direction toward an object does not apply to the mental phenomena of sensation. The second part of the paper analyses the consequences that ensue from here for the Brentanian classification of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  77
    John S. Wilkins & Malte C. Ebach (2013). The Nature of Classification: Relationships and Kinds in the Natural Sciences. Palgrave Macmillan.
    The Nature of Classification discusses an old and generally ignored issue in the philosophy of science: natural classification. It argues for classification to be a sometimes theory-free activity in science, and discusses the existence of scientific domains, theory-dependence of observation, the inferential relations of classification and theory, and the nature of the classificatory activity in general. It focuses on biological classification, but extends the discussion to physics, psychiatry, meteorology and other special sciences.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14. Omar W. Nasim (2012). The Spaces of Knowledge: Bertrand Russell, Logical Construction, and the Classification of the Sciences. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (6):1163-1182.
    What Russell regarded to be the ?chief outcome? of his 1914 Lowell Lectures at Harvard can only be fully appreciated, I argue, if one embeds the outcome back into the ?classificatory problem? that many at the time were heavily engaged in. The problem focused on the place and relationships between the newly formed or recently professionalized disciplines such as psychology, Erkenntnistheorie, physics, logic and philosophy. The prime metaphor used in discussions about the classificatory problem by British philosophers was a spatial (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Joanna Gegotek (2009). Between Physics and History. A Place of Geology in the Classification of Sciences. Filozofia Nauki 17 (2):21.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  7
    Cornelis De Waal (2005). Why Metaphysics Needs Logic and Mathematics Doesn't: Mathematics, Logic, and Metaphysics in Peirce's Classification of the Sciences. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 41 (2):283-297.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  17.  5
    Helmut Pape (1993). Final Causality in Peirce's Semiotics and His Classification of the Sciences. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 29 (4):581 - 607.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. B. Kent & Charles S. Peirce (1997). Logic and the Classification of the Sciences. Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1987. LANE, R. Principles of Excluded Middle and Contradiction. [REVIEW] Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 33 (3):680-703.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. Andrzej Klawiter (1989). A Contribution to the Classification of Adaptive Relationships/. Standard Formulation of Adaptive Relationship and its Shortcomings The Belief That the Relationships in Biological and Social Worlds Are of a Peculiar Non-Causal Character Appears as a Trademark of Advanced Methodological Reflection on Biological and Social Sciences. As Usual, Its. [REVIEW] In Leszek Nowak (ed.), Dimensions of the Historical Process. Rodopi 129.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. J. M. Long (1886). Classification of the Mathematical Sciences. Journal of Speculative Philosophy 20 (4):417 - 425.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. Helmut Pape (1988). Beverley Kent, "Charles S. Peirce: Logic and the Classification of the Sciences". [REVIEW] Journal of Speculative Philosophy 2 (2):140.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. D. A. Rees (1952). Kant's Philosophy of the Human Understanding and the Classification of the Sciences. Journal of the History of Ideas 13 (1/4):108.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. G. A. Cogswell (1899). The Classification of the Sciences. Philosophical Review 8 (5):494-512.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  20
    H. M. Stanley (1884). On the Classification of the Sciences. Mind 9 (34):265-274.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25.  19
    Albert Schinz (1903). A New Classification of the Sciences. The Monist 13 (3):456-463.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26. Giorgio Tonelli (1975). The problem of the classification of the sciences in Kant's time. Rivista di Storia Della Filosofia 30 (3):243.
    No categories
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  27.  7
    Thomas Whittaker (1903). A Compendious Classification of the Sciences. Mind 12 (45):21-34.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  6
    Maurice de Wulf (1918). The Teaching of Philosophy and the Classification of the Sciences in the Thirteenth Century. Philosophical Review 27 (4):356-373.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29.  5
    A. E. Taylor (1906). The Place of Psychology in the Classification of the Sciences. Philosophical Review 15 (4):380-386.
  30.  4
    Vincent Colapietro (1992). Charles S. Peirce: Logic and the Classification of the Sciences Beverley Kent Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1987, Selected Bibliography, Index, Xii + 258 P. [REVIEW] Dialogue 31 (01):139-.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31.  1
    Maurice De Wulf (1918). The Teaching of Philosophy and the Classification of the Sciences in the Thirteenth Century. Philosophical Review 27 (4):356 - 373.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32. Vincent Colapietro (1992). "Charles S. Peirce: Logic and the Classification of the Sciences", by Beverley Kent. [REVIEW] Dialogue 31:139.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. J. Shephenson (1923). The Classification of the Sciences According to Nasiruddin Tusi. Isis 5 (2):329-338.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Michael Root & Harold Kincaid (2000). Philosophy of the Social Sciences-Realism and Classification in the Social Sciences-Global Arguments and Local Realism About the Social Sciences. Philosophy of Science 67 (3).
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35. Michael Root (2000). Philosophy of the Social Sciences-Realism and Classification in the Social Sciences-Index of Authors. Philosophy of Science 67 (3).
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  3
    Stéphane Schmitt (2009). From Physiology to Classification: Comparative Anatomy and Vicq d'Azyr's Plan of Reform for Life Sciences and Medicine. [REVIEW] Science in Context 22 (2):145.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37. Richard Richards (2015). Wilkins, John S, and Ebach, Malte C, The Nature of Classification: Relationships and Kinds in the Natural Sciences. Science and Education 24 (4):463-468.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. Adrien Naville (1991). Nouvelle Classification des Sciences 'Etude Philosophique.
    No categories
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. Jerzy A. Wojciechowski (ed.) (1978). Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge: Proceedings of the Ottawa Conference on the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, Oct. 1st to 5th, 1971 = les Fondements De La Classification des Savoirs: Actes Du Colloque d'Ottawa Sur les Fondements De La Classification des Savoirs Du Ler au 5 Octobre 1971. [REVIEW] K. G. Saur.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40. Jerzy A. Wojciechowski (ed.) (1974). Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge: Proceedings of the Ottawa Conference on the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, Oct. 1-5, 1971 = les Fondements De La Classification des Savoirs: Actes Du Colloque d'Ottawa Sur les Fondements De La Classification des Savoirs Du Ler au 5 Octobre 1971. [REVIEW] Verlag Dokumentation.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41.  3
    Robert Flint (1904). Philosophy as Scientia Scientiarum: And, a History of Classifications of the Sciences. Arno Press.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42. Frederick Robert Tennant (1932). Philosophy of the Sciences. [Hamden, Conn.]Archon Books.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  7
    Robert F. McRae (1961). The Problem of the Unity of the Sciences: Bacon to Kant. [Toronto]University of Toronto Press.
  44. A. Broadfield (1946). The Philosophy of Classification. London, Grafton & Co..
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45. Thomas (1963). The Division and Methods of the Sciences: Questions V and Vi of His Commentary on the De Trinitate of Boethius. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. Thomas (1953). The Division and Methods of the Sciences. Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  24
    Lydia Patton (2015). Methodology of the Sciences. In Michael Forster & Kristin Gjesdal (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of German Philosophy in the Nineteenth Century. Oxford University Press 594-606.
    In the growing Prussian university system of the early nineteenth century, "Wissenschaft" (science) was seen as an endeavor common to university faculties, characterized by a rigorous methodology. On this view, history and jurisprudence are sciences, as much as is physics. Nineteenth century trends challenged this view: the increasing influence of materialist and positivist philosophies, profound changes in the relationships between university faculties, and the defense of Kant's classification of the sciences by neo-Kantians. Wilhelm Dilthey's defense of the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  2
    Yury Viktor Kissin (2013). Natural Sciences: Definitions and Attempt at Classification. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy 9 (2):116-137.
    The article discusses the formal classification of natural sciences, which is based on several propositions: (a) natural sciences can be separated onto independent and dependent sciences based on the gnosiologic criterion and irreducibility criteria (principal and technical); (b) there are four independent sciences which form a hierarchy: physics ← chemistry ← terrestrial biology ← human psychology; (c) every independent science except for physics has already developed or will develop in the future a set of final (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  10
    Robert J. O'Hara (1996). Mapping the Space of Time: Temporal Representation in the Historical Sciences. Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences 20: 7–17.
    William Whewell (1794–1866), polymathic Victorian scientist, philosopher, historian, and educator, was one of the great neologists of the nineteenth century. Although Whewell's name is little remembered today except by professional historians and philosophers of science, researchers in many scientific fields work each day in a world that Whewell named. "Miocene" and "Pliocene," "uniformitarian" and "catastrophist," "anode" and "cathode," even the word "scientist" itself—all of these were Whewell coinages. Whewell is particularly important to students of the historical sciences for another (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50.  27
    David Ludwig (2013). Hysteria, Race, Phlogiston. A Model of Ontological Elimination in the Human Sciences. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (1):68-77.
    Elimination controversies are ubiquitous in philosophy and the human sciences. For example, it has been suggested that human races, hysteria, intelligence, mental disorder, propositional attitudes such as beliefs and desires, the self, and the super-ego should be eliminated from the list of respectable entities in the human sciences. I argue that eliminativist proposals are often presented in the framework of an oversimplified “phlogiston model” and suggest an alternative account that describes ontological elimination on a gradual scale between criticism (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
1 — 50 / 1000