The article presents the German philosopher G. W. Leibniz as a key precursor of the First Law of Thermodynamics. In this way, Leibniz tried to oppose Newton, who seems to have completely rejected the First Law of Thermodynamics, while at the same time remarkably anticipating the Second. Based on his polemics not only with Newton, from whose Laws of Motion thermodynamics originates, and with his advocate Samuel Clarke, but also with René Descartes, whose conception Leibniz partially followed, Leibnizʼs reasoning turns (...) out to be the most convincing. It is certainly no coincidence that the later founders of thermodynamics frequently acknowledged him. (shrink)

Considerations related to randomness appear relatively late in European history, at the turn of the Middle Ages and the modern era. They initially concern to the chances of winning in various games or situations and later move on to introduce classical and geometric probabilities. From a mathematical point of view, the probability calculus is completed by Kolmogorov’s axiomatic theory. However, many open questions, problems and paradoxes remain in the way probability is perceived and interpreted. The four main directions in the (...) concept of probability (logical, frequentist, subjective and propensity) are closely related to the way of perceiving randomness (epistemological or ontological). Reflections on the evolution of the perception of randomness and the interpretation of probability bring the ability to navigate the basic principles and findings of science and contributes to a deeper understanding of the entire issue. (shrink)

What are philosophers doing when they prescribe a particular epistemology for science? According to science and technology studies, the answer to this question implicates both knowledge and politics, even when the latter is hidden. Exploring this dynamic via a specific case, I argue that Longino’s “critical contextual empiricism” ultimately relies on a form of political liberalism. Her choice to nevertheless foreground epistemological concerns can be clarified by considering historical relationships between science and society, as well as the culture of academic (...) philosophy. This example, I conclude, challenges philosophers of science to consider the political ideals and accountability entailed by their prescribed knowledge practices. (shrink)

Scientific knowledge relies heavily on models, shaped by simplifying assumptions, with common categories being abstraction and idealization. This article aims to expose conceptual challenges inherent in conventional interpretations of these concepts, particularly in their practical application to scientific modeling. The primary hurdle emerges in applying these categories to real­world instances of scientific modeling, which we illustrate with examples of non­causal explanations. Key issues revolve around (i) the ambiguous distinction between abstraction and idealization and (ii) the application of the simplifying assumption (...) of abstraction. Our hypothesis posits that non­causal explanations face unintelligibility due to an unclear understanding of the role of simplifying assumptions in them. To test this, we analyze selected examples, ranging from (toy­)examples to real­world instances, scrutinizing the alignment with the standard notions of abstraction and idealization. Throughout, we investigate the influence of simplifying assumptions on these explanations, assessing their adherence or deviation from conventional concepts. (shrink)