Search results for 'Metaphysical assumptions of science' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1. Muhammad ibn Ibrahim Sadr al-din Shirazi, Parviz Morewedge, Henry Corbin, Society for the Study of Islamic Philosophy and Science & Institute for Cultural Studies (1992). The Metaphysics of Mulla Sadra Kitab Al-Masha Ir = the Book of Metaphysical Prehensions. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. Nicholas Maxwell, The Problem of Induction and Metaphysical Assumptions Concerning the Comprehensibility and Knowability of the Universe. PhilSci Archive.
    Even though evidence underdetermines theory, often in science one theory only is regarded as acceptable in the light of the evidence. This suggests there are additional unacknowledged assumptions which constrain what theories are to be accepted. In the case of physics, these additional assumptions are metaphysical theses concerning the comprehensibility and knowability of the universe. Rigour demands that these implicit assumptions be made explicit within science, so that they can be critically assessed and, we (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. Nicholas Maxwell (1997). Must Science Make Cosmological Assumptions If It is to Be Rational?,. In T. Kelly (ed.), The Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the Irish Philosophical Society Spring Conference. Irish Philosophical Society
    Cosmological speculation about the ultimate nature of the universe, being necessary for science to be possible at all, must be regarded as a part of scientific knowledge itself, however epistemologically unsound it may be in other respects. The best such speculation available is that the universe is comprehensible in some way or other and, more specifically, in the light of the immense apparent success of modern natural science, that it is physically comprehensible. But both these speculations may be (...)
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  4. Nicholas Maxwell (2002). The Need for a Revolution in the Philosophy of Science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 33 (2):381-408.
    There is a need to bring about a revolution in the philosophy of science, interpreted to be both the academic discipline, and the official view of the aims and methods of science upheld by the scientific community. At present both are dominated by the view that in science theories are chosen on the basis of empirical considerations alone, nothing being permanently accepted as a part of scientific knowledge independently of evidence. Biasing choice of theory in the direction (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  5. Kenneth R. Westphal (1998). On Hegel’s Early Critique of Kant’s Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. In S. Houlgate (ed.), Hegel and the Philosophy of Nature. SUNY
    In 1801 Hegel charged that, on Kant’s analysis, forces are ‘either purely ideal, in which case they are not forces, or else they are transcendent’. I argue that this objection, which Hegel did not spell out, reveals an important and fundamental line of internal criticism of Kant’s Critical philosophy. I show that Kant’s basic forces of attraction and repulsion, which constitute matter, are merely ideal because Kant’s arguments for them are circular and beg the question, and they have no determinate (...)
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  6. Nicholas Maxwell (1977). Articulating the Aims of Science. Nature 265 (January 6):2.
    Most scientists and philosophers of science take for granted the standard empiricist view that the basic intellectual aim of science is truth per se. But this seriously misrepresents the aims of scieince. Actually, science seeks explanatory truth and, more generally, important truth. Problematic metaphysical and value assumptions are inherent in the real aims of science. Precisely because these aims are profoundly problematic, they need to be articulated, imaginatively explored and critically assesseed, in order to (...)
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  14
    Piotr Bylica (2015). Levels of Analysis in Philosophy, Religion, and Science. Zygon 50 (2):304-328.
    This article introduces a model of levels of analysis applied to statements found in philosophical, scientific, and religious discourses in order to facilitate a more accurate description of the relation between science and religion. The empirical levels prove to be the most crucial for the relation between science and religion, because they include statements that are important parts of both scientific and religious discourse, whereas statements from metaphysical levels are only important in terms of religion and are (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  38
    Marko Ahteensuu (2012). Assumptions of the Deficit Model Type of Thinking: Ignorance, Attitudes, and Science Communication in the Debate on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (3):295-313.
    This paper spells out and discusses four assumptions of the deficit model type of thinking. The assumptions are: First, the public is ignorant of science. Second, the public has negative attitudes towards (specific instances of) science and technology. Third, ignorance is at the root of these negative attitudes. Fourth, the public’s knowledge deficit can be remedied by one-way science communication from scientists to citizens. It is argued that there is nothing wrong with ignorance-based explanations per (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  35
    Immanuel Kant (2004). Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Cambridge University Press.
    Kant was centrally concerned with issues in the philosophy of natural science throughout his career. The Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science presents his most mature reflections on these themes in the context of both his 'critical' philosophy, presented in the Critique of Pure Reason, and the natural science of his time. This volume presents a new translation, by Michael Friedman, which is especially clear and accurate. There are explanatory notes indicating some of the main connections between (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   40 citations  
  10. Jennifer Nadine Mcrobert (1995). Concept Construction in Kant's "Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science". Dissertation, The University of Western Ontario (Canada)
    Kant's reasoning in his special metaphysics of nature is often opaque, and the character of his a priori foundation for Newtonian science is the subject of some controversy. Recent literature on the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science has fallen well short of consensus on the aims and reasoning in the work. Various of the doctrines and even the character of the reasoning in the Metaphysical Foundations have been taken to present insuperable obstacles to accepting Kant's claim (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  62
    Michael Friedman (2012). Newton and Kant: Quantity of Matter in the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (3):482-503.
    Immanuel Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786) provides metaphysical foundations for the application of mathematics to empirically given nature. The application that Kant primarily has in mind is that achieved in Isaac Newton's Principia (1687). Thus, Kant's first chapter, the Phoronomy, concerns the mathematization of speed or velocity, and his fourth chapter, the Phenomenology, concerns the empirical application of the Newtonian notions of true or absolute space, time, and motion. This paper concentrates on Kant's second and (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  27
    David Davies (1996). Explanatory Disunities and the Unity of Science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 10 (1):5 – 21.
    Abstract According to John Dupré, the metaphysics underpinning modern science posits a deterministic, fully law?governed and potentially fully intelligible structure that pervades the entire universe. To reject such a metaphysical framework for science is to subscribe to ?the disorder of things?, and the latter, according to Dupré, entails the impossibility of a unified science. Dupré's argument rests crucially upon purported disunities evident in the explanatory practices of science. I critically examine the implied project of drawing (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  13.  18
    Edwin E. Gantt (1999). Review of The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. [REVIEW] Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 19 (2):226-227.
    Reviews the book, The disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science by John Dupré . The book is carefully woven around two central and interrelated theses. First is the denial that "science constitutes, or could ever come to constitute, a single, unified project," and the second is an "assertion of the extreme diversity of the contents of the world." Ultimately, Dupré wishes to contend that the second of his theses "shows the inevitability of the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  38
    Kenneth R. Westphal (1995). Does Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science Fill a Gap in the Critique of Pure Reason? Synthese 103 (1):43 - 86.
    In 1792 and 1798 Kant noticed two basic problems with hisMetaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (MAdN) which opened a crucial gap in the Critical system as a whole. Why is theMAdN so important? I show that the Analogies of Experience form an integrated proof of transeunt causality. This is central to Kant's answer to Hume. This proof requires explicating the empirical concept of matter as the moveable in space, it requires the specifically metaphysical principle that every physical event (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  15. Michael Friedman (2015). Kant's Construction of Nature: A Reading of the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Cambridge University Press.
    Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science is one of the most difficult but also most important of Kant's works. Published in 1786 between the first and second editions of the Critique of Pure Reason, the Metaphysical Foundations occupies a central place in the development of Kant's philosophy, but has so far attracted relatively little attention compared with other works of Kant's critical period. Michael Friedman's book develops a new and complete reading of this work and reconstructs Kant's (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. Michael Friedman (ed.) (2006). Kant: Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Cambridge University Press.
    Kant was centrally concerned with issues in the philosophy of natural science throughout his career. The Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science presents his most mature reflections on these themes in the context of both his 'critical' philosophy, presented in the Critique of Pure Reason, and the natural science of his time. This volume presents a translation by Michael Friedman which is especially clear and accurate. There are explanatory notes indicating some of the main connections between the (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. Michael Friedman (ed.) (2012). Kant: Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Cambridge University Press.
    Kant was centrally concerned with issues in the philosophy of natural science throughout his career. The Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science presents his most mature reflections on these themes in the context of both his 'critical' philosophy, presented in the Critique of Pure Reason, and the natural science of his time. This volume presents a translation by Michael Friedman which is especially clear and accurate. There are explanatory notes indicating some of the main connections between the (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. Michael Friedman (ed.) (2004). Kant: Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Cambridge University Press.
    Kant was centrally concerned with issues in the philosophy of natural science throughout his career. The Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science presents his most mature reflections on these themes in the context of both his 'critical' philosophy, presented in the Critique of Pure Reason, and the natural science of his time. This volume presents a translation by Michael Friedman which is especially clear and accurate. There are explanatory notes indicating some of the main connections between the (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  43
    M. Kusch (2002). Metaphysical Deja Vu: Hacking and Latour on Science Studies and Metaphysics - the Social Construction of What? Ian Hacking; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. And London, England, 1999, Pp. X+261, Price £18.50 Hardback, ISBN 0-674-81200-X.Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies Bruno Latour; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. And London, England, 1999, Pp. X+324, Price £12.50, $19.95 Paperback, ISBN 0-67-465336-X, £27.95, $45.00 Hardback, ISBN 0-67-465335-. [REVIEW] Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (3):639-647.
    Ian Hacking, Hacking and Latour on science studies and metaphysics: The Social Construction of What?Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-81200-X Bruno Latour, Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science StudiesHarvard University Press, ISBN0-67-465336-X.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  12
    Giridhari Lal Pandit (2010). How Simple is It for Science to Acquire Wisdom According to its Choicest Aims? Philosophia 38 (4):649-666.
    Focusing on Nicholas Maxwell’s thesis that “science, properly understood, provides us the methodological key to the salvation of humanity”, the article discusses Maxwell’s aim oriented empiricism and his conception of Wisdom Inquiry as advocated in Maxwell’s (2009b, pp.1–56) essay entitled “How Can Life of Value Best Flourish in the Real World?” (in Science and the Pursuit of Wisdom: Studies in the Philosophy of Nicholas Maxwell 2009, edited by Leemon McHenry) and in Maxwell (2004 & 2009a).
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  35
    John Dupré (1993). The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Harvard University Press.
  22. Jeffrey Koperski (2003). Intelligent Design and the End of Science. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (4):567-588.
    In his recent anthology, Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, Robert Pennock continues his attack on what he considers to be the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design Theory. In this critical review, I discuss the main issues in the debate. Although the rhetoric is often heavy and the articles are intentionally stacked against Intelligent Design, there are many interesting topics in the philosophy of science to be found. I conclude that, contra Pennock, there is nothing intrinsically unscientific about Intelligent Design. (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  23.  26
    Cláudia Ribeiro (2015). The Complementarity of Science and Metaphysics. Philosophica 90.
    A renewed interest in the old problem of the relationship between science and metaphysics has been fuelled by the ongoing debate between naturalistic metaphysicians and non-naturalistic metaphysicians. However, I maintain that this debate is missing the mark because it is focused on the problem of the credibility of a metaphysics that is not ‘scientific’, instead of focusing on the presence of metaphysics in science. In order to show that metaphysics pervades all stages of scientific inquiry, and after analysing (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  48
    Philipp Frank (1950). Metaphysical Interpretations of Science. Part II. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1 (2):77-91.
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25.  68
    Philipp Frank (1950). Metaphysical Interpretations of Science. Part I. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1 (1):60-74.
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26.  34
    Lisa Gannett (2010). Questions Asked and Unasked: How by Worrying Less About the 'Really Real' Philosophers of Science Might Better Contribute to Debates About Genetics and Race. Synthese 177 (3):363 - 385.
    Increased attention paid to inter-group genetic variability following completion of the Human Genome Project has provoked debate about race as a category of classification in biomedicine and as a biological phenomenon at the level of the genome. Philosophers of science favor a metaphysical approach relying on natural kind theorizing, the underlying assumptions of which structure the questions asked. Limitations arise the more metaphysically invested and less attuned to scientific practice these questions are. Other questions—arguably, those that matter (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  27.  11
    Haig Khatchadourian (1955). Some Metaphysical Presuppositions of Science. Philosophy of Science 22 (3):194-204.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  4
    Peter A. Carmichael (1953). The Metaphysical Matrix of Science. Philosophy of Science 20 (3):208-216.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. Edwin A. Burtt (1954). The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. Dover Publications.
    To the medieval thinker, man was the center of creation and all of nature existed purely for his benefit. The shift from the philosophy of the Middle Ages to the modern view of humanity's less central place in the universe ranks as the greatest revolution in the history of Western thought, and this classic in the philosophy of science describes and analyzes how the profound change occurred. A fascinating analysis of the works of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Hobbes, Gilbert, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   21 citations  
  30.  27
    Uljana Feest (2007). Science and Experience/Science of Experience: Gestalt Psychology and the Anti-Metaphysical Project of the Aufbau. Perspectives on Science 15 (1):1-25.
    : This paper investigates the way in which Rudolf Carnap drew on Gestalt psychological notions when defining the basic elements of his constitutional system. I argue that while Carnap's conceptualization of basic experience was compatible with ideas articulated by members of the Berlin/Frankfurt school of Gestalt psychology, his formal analysis of the relationship between two basic experiences ("recollection of similarity") was not. This is consistent, given that Carnap's aim was to provide a unified reconstruction of scientific knowledge, as opposed to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Nicholas Maxwell (2015). What’s Wrong With Aim-Oriented Empiricism? Acta Baltica Historiae Et Philosophiae Scientiarum 3 (2):5-31.
    For four decades it has been argued that we need to adopt a new conception of science called aim-oriented empiricism. This has far-reaching implications and repercussions for science, the philosophy of science, academic inquiry in general, conception of rationality, and how we go about attempting to make progress towards as good a world as possible. Despite these far-reaching repercussions, aim-oriented empiricism has so far received scant attention from philosophers of science. Here, sixteen objections to the validity (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32.  3
    Chris Smeenk (2015). Review ofKant’s Construction of NatureMichael Friedman,Kant’s Construction of Nature: A Reading of the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 646 Pp., $37.99. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 82 (4):718-726.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33.  46
    Mariam Thalos (1995). Book Review:The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science John Dupre. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 62 (2):351-.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34.  4
    Lorraine Daston (1991). History of Science in an Elegiac Mode: E. A. Burtt's Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science Revisited. Isis: A Journal of the History of Science 82:522-531.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  35.  6
    David Hyder (2014). Kant's Construction of Nature: A Reading of the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. [REVIEW] Isis: A Journal of the History of Science 105 (2):433-435.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. James Jacob & Margaret Jacob (1980). The Anglican Origins of Modern Science: The Metaphysical Foundations of the Whig Constitution. Isis: A Journal of the History of Science 71:251-267.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  37. Tm Lennon (1989). Physical and Metaphysical Atomism: 1666-1682 in An Intimate Relation. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 116:81-95.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. Ae Miller & Mg Miller (1994). Metaphysical Construction: The Central Method of the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 159:62-97.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. Ae Miller & Mg Miller (1994). Plaass's Interpretation of Metaphysical Construction'and the Issue of Objective Reality'in the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 159:97-131.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40.  15
    Hermann Weyl (1932). The Open World: Three Lectures on the Metaphysical Implications of Science. Ox Bow Press.
  41.  4
    Jan Woleński (2011). The Problem of Philosophical Assumptions and Consequences of Science. Studia Philosophiae Christianae 4:117-134.
    This paper argues that science is not dependent on philosophical assumption and does not entail philosophical consequences. The concept of dependence and entailment is understood logically, that is, are defined via consequence operation. Speaking more colloquially, the derivation of scientific theorems does not use philosophical statements as premises and one cannot derive philosophical theses from scientific assertions. This does not mean that science and philosophy are completely separated. In particular, sciences leads to some philosophical insights, but it must (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42.  3
    Edwin Arthur Burtt (2001). The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science: A Historical and Critical Essay. Routledge.
    First published in 2000. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  43.  7
    John Dewey (1882). The Metaphysical Assumptions of Materialism. Journal of Speculative Philosophy 16 (2):208 - 213.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  44.  1
    Boleslaw Sobocinski (1950). Review: Henryk Mehlberg, On the Unverifiable Assumptions of Science. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 15 (4):280-280.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45. Henryk Mehlberg (1950). On the Unverifiable Assumptions of Science. Journal of Symbolic Logic 15 (4):280-280.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. Ak Raina (2000). Metaphysical Bases of Science. In A. K. Raina, B. N. Patnaik & Monima Chadha (eds.), Science and Tradition. Inter-University Centre for Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Advanced Study 54.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47. Willis W. Harman & Jane Clark (eds.) (1994). The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. Ions.
  48. Immanuel Kant & Ernest Belfort Bax (1883). Kant's Prolegomena and Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
  49. Nick Tosh (2007). Science, Truth and History, Part II. Metaphysical Bolt-Holes for the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38 (1):185-209.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50.  20
    Edwin A. Burtt (1954). The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science. Garden City, N.Y.,Doubleday.
    CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION (A) Historical Problem Suggested by the Nature of Modern Thought How curious, after all, is the way in which we moderns think about ...
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   77 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000