In this article, I argue that the interpretation of Kant's a priori in Marburg neo-Kantianism involved a historiographical problem concerning the Platonic interpretation of the history of exact sci...

To many contemporary scholars, Émile Meyerson is a footnote in an obscure history: early twentieth-century French philosophy of science. While the traditions of épistémologie are beginning to enjoy the scrutiny they deserve, Meyerson’s role remains overlooked. This article provides an overview of Meyerson’s philosophical project to help sow the seeds for a more systematic recuperation of its legacy. By orienting his work historically, I elucidate the nature of Meyerson’s critique of positivism, his distinctive method, and the implications these have for (...) the relation between science and philosophy. In particular, I show that for Meyerson positivisme refers not only to the doctrine of Auguste Comte but to a general philosophical tendency. Inseparable from Meyerson’s critique of this tendency is his implementation of a new methodology—épistémologie—according to which reason must be understood through the historical development of science. Épistémologie reveals that positivism not only is an incomplete account of science but is detrimental to its progress. Accordingly, Meyerson hopes to secure science’s right to function according to its own immanent principles, thereby providing prolegomena to all future metaphysics through a historical determination of the nature and limits of human reason. (shrink)

Gerald Holton has famously described Einstein’s career as a philosophical “pilgrimage”. Starting on “the historic ground” of Machian positivism and phenomenalism, following the completion of general relativity in late 1915, Einstein’s philosophy endured (a) a speculative turn: physical theorizing appears as ultimately a “pure mathematical construction” guided by faith in the simplicity of nature and (b) a realistic turn: science is “nothing more than a refinement ”of the everyday belief in the existence of mind-independent physical reality. Nevertheless, Einstein’s mathematical constructivism (...) that supports his unified field theory program appears to be, at first sight, hardly compatible with the common sense realism with which he countered quantum theory. Thus, literature on Einstein’s philosophy of science has often struggled in finding the thread between ostensibly conflicting philosophical pronouncements. This paper supports the claim that Einstein’s dialog with Émile Meyerson from the mid 1920s till the early 1930s might be a neglected source to solve this riddle. According to Einstein, Meyerson shared (a) his belief in the independent existence of an external world and (b) his conviction that the latter can be grasped only by speculative means. Einstein could present his search for a unified field theory as a metaphysical-realistic program opposed to the positivistic-operationalist spirit of quantum mechanics. (shrink)

The object of this paper is to determine the relations between the two parts of Parmenides' poem: the Way of Truth, which deduces the necessary properties of a One Being, and the False Way, which contains a cosmogony based on ‘what seems to mortals, in which there is no true belief.’.

The object of this paper is to determine the relations between the two parts of Parmenides' poem: the Way of Truth, which deduces the necessary properties of a One Being, and the False Way, which contains a cosmogony based on ‘what seems to mortals, in which there is no true belief.’.

In order to delimit the field of theoretical biology, the author distinguishes in empirical biology a substructure and a superstructure. Empirical biology cannot be constituted without a minimum of reference to philosophical ideas such as the principle of identity ; having regard to its objective, which is explanation by means of physico-chemical models, it does not easily avoid ontological aspirations. Further, experimental research makes great use of scientific theories. Finally, the elaboration of the empirical data of biology may find its (...) fulfilment in an ontological science, philosophical biology, which is a branch of the philosophy of nature. Philosophical biology, superstructure of experimental biology, is a discipline intermediate between the special sciences of life, defined in an empirical sense, and metaphysics.Um den Bereich der theoretischen Biologie abzugrenzen, unterscheidet der Autor in der positiven Biologie eine “Infrastruktur” und eine “Suprastruktur”. Die positive Biologie kann nicht ohne ein Minimum von Beziehungen zu den philosophischen Begriffen aufgebaut werden, wie z.B. zu dem Prinzip der Identität ; ihrem Ziele nach betrachtet, welches in der Erklärung durch physiko-chemische Grundbegriffe besteht, kann sie sich nicht gut den ontologischen Ansprüchen entziehen. Darüber hinaus bedient sich die experimentelle Forschung weitgehend der wissenschaftlichen Theorien. Zum Schluss kann die Bearbeitung der empirischen Erkenntnisse in der Biologie ihre Vollendung in einer ontologischen Wissenschaft, die philosophische Biologie, welche ein Zweig der Philosophie der Natur ist, finden. Die philosophische Biologie, die der experimentellen übergeordnet ist, steht als Disziplin zwischen den besonderen Wissenschaften vom Leben, verstanden im empirischen Sinne, und der Metaphysik. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to elucidate the notions of explanation and mechanism, in particular of the social kind. A mechanism is defined as what makes a concrete system tick, and it is argued that to propose an explanation proper is to exhibit a lawful mechanism. The so-called covering law model is shown to exhibit only the logical aspect of explanation: it just subsumes particulars under universals. A full or mechanismic explanation involves mechanismic law statements, not purely descriptive ones (...) such as functional relations and rate equations. Many examples from the natural, biosocial, and social sciences are examined. In particular, macro-micro-micro-macro social relations are shown to explain other wise puzzling macro-macro links. The last part of the article relates the author's progress, over half a century, toward understanding mechanism and explanation. (shrink)

This article addresses the following problems: What is a mechanism, how can it be discovered, and what is the role of the knowledge of mechanisms in scientific explanation and technological control? The proposed answers are these. A mechanism is one of the processes in a concrete system that makes it what it is — for example, metabolism in cells, interneuronal connections in brains, work in factories and offices, research in laboratories, and litigation in courts of law. Because mechanisms are largely (...) or totally imperceptible, they must be conjectured. Once hypothesized they help explain, because a deep scientific explanation is an answer to a question of the form, "How does it work, that is, what makes it tick—what are its mechanisms?" Thus, by contrast with the subsumption of particulars under a generalization, an explanation proper consists in unveiling some lawful mechanism, as when political stability is explained by either coercion, public opinion manipulation, or democratic participation. Finding mechanisms satisfies not only the yearning for understanding, but also the need for control. Key Words: explanation • function • mechanism • process • system • systemism. (shrink)

La structure du comportement details consciousness-nature relations by navigating between realist and intellectualist alternatives. A phenomenological reading of form guides its attempt to formulate a view that does not reduce consciousness to matter or perceptual structure to a product of mind. I show that this strategy relies on hitherto overlooked idealist commitments. Forms are perceived objects whose intentional structure is intelligibly organized. Having denied that forms are constituted by mind or emergent from matter, Merleau-Ponty likens form-constitution to an ideal process (...) of intentional self-organization. Despite recognizing that Gestalt psychology develops fruitful models of perceptual self-organization, and adopting the transcendental view that form is significant for consciousness, his revisionary interpretation of form outstrips these accounts’ ontologies of mind and nature, and is better understood in light of a post-Kantian philosophical heritage. These results cast Merleau-Ponty’s relation to the Gestalt, post-Kantian, and phenomenological traditions in new light, challenge naturalizing interpretations of Structure, and motivate a rethinking of the status of metaphysics in his early thought. (shrink)

Il s’agit d’affronter la « figure » d’Ettore Majorana et d’en proposer un premier « profil philosophique ». La question des « fictions » apparaît alors centrale chez Majorana. On établit ensuite la dimension surrationaliste et européenne de ses affinités électives avec Giovanni Gentile Junior. Les deux oeuvres sont restituées dans le cadre d’un mathématisme constructif et inductif (Gaston Bachelard, puis Robert Blanché) qui s’oppose au géométrisme classique (Emile Meyerson) et au pythagorisme spiritualiste (Arthur Eddington).

La Valeur inductive de la relativité est sans conteste l'ouvrage le plus méconnu de toute l'oeuvre «philosophique» de Gaston Bachelard. Au silence presque total, à l'absence de lectures, ne répondent que des interprétations du« premier genre», appuyées sur un certain ouï-dire discursif, mais qui font l'autorité des pseudo-standards. Les positions bachelardiennes sont ici confrontées à La Déduction relativiste d'Émile Meyerson. Le poids de l'analyse portera essentiellement sur un dépl(o)iement du dispositif bachelardien d'induction et de construction. L'appareillage « inductif » doit (...) être pensé sur le modèle électromagnétique, et la position «constructiviste» est toujours liée au travail de synthèse. Enfin, c'est une véritable métaphysique que semble dès lors devoir engendrer cette « pensée des sciences ». (shrink)

Il s’agit d’affronter la « figure » d’Ettore Majorana et d’en proposer un premier « profil philosophique ». La question des « fictions » apparaît alors centrale chez Majorana. On établit ensuite la dimension surrationaliste et européenne de ses affinités électives avec Giovanni Gentile Junior. Les deux oeuvres sont restituées dans le cadre d’un mathématisme constructif et inductif (Gaston Bachelard, puis Robert Blanché) qui s’oppose au géométrisme classique (Emile Meyerson) et au pythagorisme spiritualiste (Arthur Eddington).