DOCSLIB.ORG

Fritz Allhoff

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fritz Allhoff Philosophies of the Sciences Philosophies of the Sciences A Guide Edited by Fritz Allhoff A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication This edition first published 2010 © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing program has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical, and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell. Registered Office John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom Editorial Offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell. The right of Fritz Allhoff to be identified as the author of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Philosophies of the sciences: A guide / edited by Fritz Allhoff. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4051-9995-7 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Science—Philosophy. I. Allhoff, Fritz. Q175.G782 2010 001.01–dc22 2009018244 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Set in 10.5/13pt Minion by Graphicraft Limited, Hong Kong Printed in Singapore 01 2010 Contents Notes on Contributors vii List of Figures xii Unit 1: Introduction 1 1 Philosophies of the Sciences 3 Fritz Allhoff 2 Philosophy of Science 9 Richard DeWitt Unit 2: Philosophy of the Exact Sciences 39 3 Philosophy of Logic 41 Otávio Bueno 4 Philosophy of Mathematics 68 Otávio Bueno 5 Philosophy of Probability 92 Aidan Lyon Unit 3: Philosophy of the Natural Sciences 127 6 Philosophy of Physics 129 Richard DeWitt 7 Philosophy of Chemistry 163 Joachim Schummer 8 Philosophy of Biology 184 Matthew H. Haber, Andrew Hamilton, Samir Okasha, and Jay Odenbaugh vi Contents 9 Philosophy of Earth Science 213 Maarten G. Kleinhans, Chris J.J. Buskes, and Henk W. de Regt Unit 4: Philosophy of the Behavioral and Social Sciences 237 10 Philosophy of the Cognitive Sciences 239 William Bechtel and Mitchell Herschbach 11 Philosophy of Psychology 262 Edouard Machery 12 Philosophy of Sociology 293 Daniel Little 13 Philosophy of Economics 324 Daniel M. Hausman Index 356 Notes on Contributors Fritz Allhoff is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Western Michigan University and a Research Fellow in the Centre for Applied Ethics and Public Philosophy at the Australian National University. At Western Michigan University, he is also an adjunct Assistant Professor in the Mallinson Institute for Science Education and the Director of the History and Philosophy of Science Working Group. He has held visiting fellowships at the Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh and at the Brocher Foundation (Geneva, Switzerland). He has research and teaching interests in the history and philosophy of biology, from Darwin through contemporary debates. William Bechtel is a Professor in the Department of Philosophy and the interdisciplinary programs in Science Studies and Cognitive Science at the University of California, San Diego. His research has sought to characterize mechanistic explanations, the processes by which they are developed and evaluated, and the ways they are represented. His current focus is on dynamical activity in self-organizing and sustaining mechanisms in biology, especially ones exhibiting oscillations. His recent books include Discovering Cell Mechanisms (2006) and Mental Mechanisms (2008). Otávio Bueno is a Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Miami. His research concentrates in philosophy of science, philosophy of mathematics, and philosophy of logic, and he is currently developing a fictionalist conception that is empiricist about science and nominalist about mathematics. He has held visiting professorships or fellowships at Princeton University, the University of York (UK), the Uni- versity of Leeds, and the University of São Paulo. He has published papers in journals such as Philosophy of Science, Synthese, Journal of Philosophical viii Notes on Contributors Logic, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Analysis, Erkenntnis, and History and Philosophy of Logic. Chris J.J. Buskes is a Lecturer in the Philosophy of Science at the Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands. His work focuses on epistemology and general philosophy of science, with a special interest in the philosophy of biology. Among his publications is The Genealogy of Knowledge (1998), which offers a critical appraisal of evolutionary approaches to epistemology and philosophy of science. His latest book Evolutionair Denken (Evolutionary Thinking, 2006), aimed at a general public, was awarded the 2007 Socrates Goblet for the most stimulating Dutch book on philosophy and is now being translated into Spanish, German, and Polish. Henk W. de Regt is a Lecturer in Philosophy of Science at the Faculty of Philosophy, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands. His present research focuses on the topics of scientific understanding and values in science. He has published in journals such as Philosophy of Science, Synthese, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, and Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. De Regt is co-founder and member of the Steering Committee of the European Philosophy of Science Association, co-founder of the Society for the Philosophy of Science in Practice, and editor-in-chief of the Dutch philosophy journal Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte. Richard DeWitt is a Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Fairfield University. His areas of specialization include the history and philosophy of science, logic, and the philosophy of mind. His recent publications include work on many valued and fuzzy logics, especially the question of the axiomatizability of fuzzy logics; a publication (with R. James Long) involving medieval logic; and an introductory book on the history and philosophy of science. Matthew H. Haber is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Philo- sophy at the University of Utah. His research in philosophy of biology has focused on conceptual issues in systematics, including phylogenetic inference, the nature of biological taxa and hierarchies, foundational issues in nomenclature and classification, and the structure of phylogenetic think- ing. He also has research interests looking at the overlap of philosophy of Notes on Contributors ix biology and applied bioethics, most notably concerning the ethics of part- human embryonic research. Andrew Hamilton is an Assistant Professor in the School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University, where he is active in the Center for Biology and Society, the Center for Social Dynamics and Complexity, and the International Institute for Species Exploration. His research focuses on the conceptual and theoretical foundations of the biological sciences, particu- larly evolutionary theory and systematics. Hamilton’s work has appeared in philosophy, history, and science journals, including Philosophy of Science, Biological Theory, Isis, and PLoS Biology. Daniel M. Hausman is the Herbert A. Simon Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. His work lies mainly at the intersection between economics and philosophy and addresses issues concerning methodology, rationality, causality, and ethics; and he was the co-founder of the journal Philosophy and Economics. Among his many publications, The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics (1992), Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy, and Public Policy (jointly with Michael McPherson, 2006), and The Philosophy of Economics: An Anthology (3rd edn., 2007) address general philosophical questions concerning economics. Mitchell Herschbach is a PhD candidate in Philosophy and Cognitive Science at the University of California, San Diego. His dissertation integrates research from analytic philosophy of mind, phenomenology, cognitive science, developmental psychology, and neuroscience about human social understanding, particularly our folk psychological
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stephen J. Gould's Legacy
    STEPHEN J. GOULD’S LEGACY NATURE, HISTORY, SOCIETY Venice, May 10–12, 2012 Organized by Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti in collaboration with Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia ABSTRACTS Organizing Committee Gian Antonio Danieli, Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti Elena Gagliasso, Sapienza Università di Roma Alessandro Minelli, Università degli studi di Padova and Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti Telmo Pievani, Università degli studi di Milano Bicocca and Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti Maria Turchetto, Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia Chairpersons Bernardino Fantini, Université de Genève Marco Ferraguti, Università degli studi di Milano Elena Gagliasso, Sapienza Università di Roma Giorgio Manzi, Sapienza Università di Roma Alessandro Minelli, Università degli studi di Padova and Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti Telmo Pievani, Università degli studi di Milano Bicocca and Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti Maria Turchetto, Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia Invited speakers Guido Barbujani, Università degli studi di Ferrara Marcello Buiatti, Università degli studi di Firenze Andrea Cavazzini, Université de Liège Niles Eldredge, American Museum of Natural History, New York T. Ryan Gregory, University of Guelph Alberto Gualandi, Università degli studi di Bologna Elisabeth Lloyd, Indiana University Giuseppe Longo, CNRS; École Normale Supérieure, Paris Winfried Menninghaus, Freie Universität Berlin Alessandro Minelli, Università degli studi di Padova and Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti Gerd Müller, Konrad Lorenz Institute, Vienna and Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti Marco Pappalardo, McGill University, Montreal Telmo Pievani, Università degli studi di Milano Bicocca and Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti Klaus Scherer, Université de Genève Ian Tattersall, American Museum of Natural History, New York May 20, 2012 will be the tenth anniversary of Stephen Jay Gould’s death.
    [Show full text]
  • Adaptationism and the Logic of Research Questions: How to Think Clearly About Evolutionary Causes
    Biol Theory (2015) 10:343–362 DOI 10.1007/s13752-015-0214-2 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Adaptationism and the Logic of Research Questions: How to Think Clearly About Evolutionary Causes Elisabeth A. Lloyd1 Received: 20 March 2015 / Accepted: 29 May 2015 / Published online: 9 July 2015 Ó Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research 2015 Abstract This article discusses various dangers that popular methods, despite its benign reputation. In ‘‘The accompany the supposedly benign methods in behavioral Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm,’’ evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology that fall Gould and Lewontin (1979) drew attention to several under the framework of ‘‘methodological adaptationism.’’ dangers in using this method. In this article, I present a A ‘‘Logic of Research Questions’’ is proposed that aids in framework for analysis that makes their worries clearer. I clarifying the reasoning problems that arise due to the also warn of further risks of this methodological frame- framework under critique. The live, and widely practiced, work, expanding on the dangers it poses to scientific rea- ‘‘evolutionary factors’’ framework is offered as the key soning in evolutionary biology. At the same time, I comparison and alternative. The article goes beyond the emphasize that I am not attacking the notion of looking for traditional critique of Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. adaptations in evolutionary studies: I am not anti-adapta- Lewontin, to present problems such as the disappearance of tion. The issues concern which framework is most appro- evidence, the mishandling of the null hypothesis, and priate and fruitful. failures in scientific reasoning, exemplified by a case from As evolutionary biology is usually taught and con- human behavioral ecology.
    [Show full text]
  • Stephen Jay Gould Papers M1437
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt229036tr No online items Guide to the Stephen Jay Gould Papers M1437 Jenny Johnson Department of Special Collections and University Archives August 2011 ; revised 2019 Green Library 557 Escondido Mall Stanford 94305-6064 [email protected] URL: http://library.stanford.edu/spc Guide to the Stephen Jay Gould M1437 1 Papers M1437 Language of Material: English Contributing Institution: Department of Special Collections and University Archives Title: Stephen Jay Gould papers creator: Gould, Stephen Jay source: Shearer, Rhonda Roland Identifier/Call Number: M1437 Physical Description: 575 Linear Feet(958 boxes) Physical Description: 1180 computer file(s)(52 megabytes) Date (inclusive): 1868-2004 Date (bulk): bulk Abstract: This collection documents the life of noted American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, Stephen Jay Gould. The papers include correspondence, juvenilia, manuscripts, subject files, teaching files, photographs, audiovisual materials, and personal and biographical materials created and compiled by Gould. Both textual and born-digital materials are represented in the collection. Preferred Citation [identification of item], Stephen Jay Gould Papers, M1437. Dept. of Special Collections, Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, Calif. Publication Rights While Special Collections is the owner of the physical and digital items, permission to examine collection materials is not an authorization to publish. These materials are made available for use
    [Show full text]
  • Adaptationism and the Logic of Research Questions: How to Think Clearly About Evolutionary Causes
    Biol Theory (2015) 10:343–362 DOI 10.1007/s13752-015-0214-2 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Adaptationism and the Logic of Research Questions: How to Think Clearly About Evolutionary Causes Elisabeth A. Lloyd1 Received: 20 March 2015 / Accepted: 29 May 2015 / Published online: 9 July 2015 Ó Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research 2015 Abstract This article discusses various dangers that popular methods, despite its benign reputation. In ‘‘The accompany the supposedly benign methods in behavioral Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm,’’ evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology that fall Gould and Lewontin (1979) drew attention to several under the framework of ‘‘methodological adaptationism.’’ dangers in using this method. In this article, I present a A ‘‘Logic of Research Questions’’ is proposed that aids in framework for analysis that makes their worries clearer. I clarifying the reasoning problems that arise due to the also warn of further risks of this methodological frame- framework under critique. The live, and widely practiced, work, expanding on the dangers it poses to scientific rea- ‘‘evolutionary factors’’ framework is offered as the key soning in evolutionary biology. At the same time, I comparison and alternative. The article goes beyond the emphasize that I am not attacking the notion of looking for traditional critique of Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. adaptations in evolutionary studies: I am not anti-adapta- Lewontin, to present problems such as the disappearance of tion. The issues concern which framework is most appro- evidence, the mishandling of the null hypothesis, and priate and fruitful. failures in scientific reasoning, exemplified by a case from As evolutionary biology is usually taught and con- human behavioral ecology.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Cincinnati
    UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date: 14-May-2010 I, Lindsay R Craig , hereby submit this original work as part of the requirements for the degree of: Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy It is entitled: Scientific Change in Evolutionary Biology: Evo-Devo and the Developmental Synthesis Student Signature: Lindsay R Craig This work and its defense approved by: Committee Chair: Robert Skipper, PhD Robert Skipper, PhD 6/6/2010 690 Scientific Change in Evolutionary Biology: Evo-Devo and the Developmental Synthesis A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Philosophy of the College of Arts and Sciences by Lindsay R. Craig B.A. Butler University M.A. University of Cincinnati May 2010 Advisory Committee: Associate Professor Robert Skipper, Jr., Chair/Advisor Professor Emeritus Richard M. Burian Assistant Professor Koffi N. Maglo Professor Robert C. Richardson Abstract Although the current episode of scientific change in the study of evolution, the Developmental Synthesis as I will call it, has attracted the attention of several philosophers, historians, and biologists, important questions regarding the motivation for and structure of the new synthesis are currently unanswered. The thesis of this dissertation is that the Developmental Synthesis is a two-phase multi-field integration motivated by the lack of adequate causal explanations of the origin of novel morphologies and the evolution of developmental processes over geologic time. I argue that the first phase of the Developmental Synthesis is a partial explanatory reconciliation. More specifically, I contend that the rise of the developmental gene concept and the discovery of highly conserved developmental genes helped demonstrate the overlap in explanatory interests between the developmental sciences and other scientific fields within the domain of evolutionary biology.
    [Show full text]
  • Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} the Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory by Elisabeth A
    Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory by Elisabeth A. Lloyd The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory. The world’s #1 eTextbook reader for students. VitalSource is the leading provider of online textbooks and course materials. More than 15 million users have used our Bookshelf platform over the past year to improve their learning experience and outcomes. With anytime, anywhere access and built-in tools like highlighters, flashcards, and study groups, it’s easy to see why so many students are going digital with Bookshelf. titles available from more than 1,000 publishers. customer reviews with an average rating of 9.5. digital pages viewed over the past 12 months. institutions using Bookshelf across 241 countries. The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory by Elisabeth A. Lloyd and Publisher Princeton University Press. Save up to 80% by choosing the eTextbook option for ISBN: 9780691223834, 0691223831. The print version of this textbook is ISBN: 9780691000466, 0691000468. The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory by Elisabeth A. Lloyd and Publisher Princeton University Press. Save up to 80% by choosing the eTextbook option for ISBN: 9780691223834, 0691223831. The print version of this textbook is ISBN: 9780691000466, 0691000468. ISBN 13: 9780691000466. The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory. Lloyd, Elisabeth A. This specific ISBN edition is currently not available. Traditionally a scientific theory is viewed as based on universal laws of nature that serve as axioms for logical deduction. In analyzing the logical structure of evolutionary biology, Elisabeth Lloyd argues that the semantic account is more appropriate and powerful.
    [Show full text]
  • Neo-Darwinism and Evo-Devo: an Argument for Theoretical Pluralism in Evolutionary Biology
    Neo-Darwinism and Evo-Devo: An Argument for Theoretical Pluralism in Evolutionary Biology Lindsay R. Craig Temple University There is an ongoing debate over the relationship between so-called neo-Darwinism and evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) that is motivated in part by the possibility of a theoretical synthesis of the two (e.g., Amundson 2005; Brigandt and Love 2010; Laubichler 2010; Minelli 2010; Pigliucci and Müller 2010). Through analysis of the terms and arguments employed in this debate, I argue that an alternative line of argument has been missed. Specifically, I use the terms of this debate to argue that a relative significance issue (Beatty 1995, 1997) exists and reflects a theoretical pluralism that is likely to remain. 1. Introduction The relatively new field of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) continues to attract considerable attention from biologists, philosophers, and historians, in part, because work in this field demonstrates that impor- tant changes are underway within biology (e.g., Gilbert, Opitz and Raff 1996; Love 2003; Amundson 2005; Burian 2005a; Müller and Newman 2005; Laubichler 2007, 2010; Müller 2007; Pigliucci 2007, 2009; Minelli 2010). Though studies of development and evolution were closely connected during the 19th century, continued work in genetics fostered a general split between the two during the first decades of the twentieth century (e.g., Allen 1978; Gilbert 1978; Mayr and Provine 1980; Gilbert, Opitz and Raff 1996). Consequently, embryology and developmental biology did not play a significant role in the development of so-called neo-Darwinism1 during the Thanks to Richard Burian, Michael Dietrich, and Robert Richardson for comments on earlier versions of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Problem Solving for Today's Social Context Holly K. Brewster Submitted in Partial Fulfillment O
    The Teacher as Mathematician: Problem Solving for Today’s Social Context Holly K. Brewster Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under the Executive Committee of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2014 © 2014 Holly K. Brewster All rights reserved ABSTRACT The Teacher as Mathematician: Problem Solving for Today’s Social Context Holly K. Brewster A current trend in social justice oriented education research is the promotion of certain intellectual virtues that support epistemic responsibility, or differently put, the dispositions necessary to be a good knower. On the surface, the proposition of epistemically responsible teaching, or teaching students to be responsible knowers is innocuous, even banal. In the mathematics classroom, however, it is patently at odds with current practice and with the stated goals of mathematics education. This dissertation begins by detailing the extant paradigm in mathematics education, which characterizes mathematics as a body of skills to be mastered, and which rewards ways of thinking that are highly procedural and mechanistic. It then argues, relying on a wide range of educational thinkers including John Dewey, Maxine Greene, Miranda Fricker, and a collection of scholars of white privilege, that an important element in social justice education is the eradication of such process-oriented thinking, and the promotion of such intellectual virtues as courage and humility. Because the dominant paradigm is supported by an ideology and mythology of mathematics, however, changing that paradigm necessitates engaging with the underlying conceptions of mathematics that support it. The dissertation turns to naturalist philosophers of education make clear that the nature of mathematics practice and the growth of mathematical knowledge are not characterized by mechanistic and procedural thinking at all.
    [Show full text]
  • The Units of Selection and the Causal Structure of the World Author(S): P
    The Units of Selection and the Causal Structure of the World Author(s): P. Kyle Stanford Source: Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol. 54, No. 2 (2001), pp. 215-233 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20013047 Accessed: 26-09-2016 19:20 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Erkenntnis (1975-) This content downloaded from 128.195.64.2 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:20:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms P. KYLE STANFORD THE UNITS OF SELECTION AND THE CAUSAL STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD ABSTRACT. Genie selectionism holds that all selection can be understood as operating on particular genes. Critics (and conventional biological wisdom) insist that this misrep? resents the actual causal structure of selective phenomena at higher levels of biological organization, but cannot convincingly defend this intuition. I argue that the real failing of genie selectionism is pragmatic - it prevents us from adopting the most efficient corpus of causal laws for predicting and intervening in the course of affairs - and I offer a Pragmatic account of causation itself which ultimately bears out the claim that genie selectionism misrepresents the causal structure of selective contexts.
    [Show full text]
  • Stephen J. Gould: the Scientific Legacy
    Stephen J. Gould: The Scientific Legacy Gian Antonio Danieli • Alessandro Minelli Telmo Pievani Editors Stephen J. Gould: The Scientific Legacy 123 Editors Gian Antonio Danieli Alessandro Minelli Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti Telmo Pievani Venice University of Padua and Istituto Veneto di Italy Scienze, Lettere ed Arti Padua, Venice Italy ISBN 978-88-470-5423-3 ISBN 978-88-470-5424-0 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-88-470-5424-0 Springer Milan Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London Library of Congress Control Number: 2013941492 Ó Springer-Verlag Italia 2013 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Kommentiertes Vorlesungsverzeichnis (KVV)
    Institut für Philosophie Kommentiertes Vorlesungsverzeichnis (KVV) Sommersemester 2020 1. Bitte beachten Sie die genauen Raum- und Zeitangaben der Veranstaltungen im elektronischen Vorlesungsverzeichnis unter www.basis.uni-bonn.de 2. Studienanfängerinnen und -anfänger, die sich noch nicht zu den Veranstaltungen elektronisch anmelden konnten, besuchen die innerhalb der Modulvorgaben gewählten Veranstaltungen ab Semesterbeginn und melden sich in der Nachbelegungsphase unter www.basis.uni-bonn.de nach. 3. Bitte beachten Sie hierbei insbesondere für die Module TP und PP des BA und für sämtliche Module des MA Philosophie die Regeln zur korrekten Veranstaltungsbelegung. Eine Anleitung finden Sie unter www.philosophie.uni-bonn.de, dort auf der Seite "Studium". 1 Liste der Lehrveranstaltungen des Instituts für Philosophie im Wintersemester 2020 1. Bachelor- Studiengänge Philosophie: Kernfach, Begleitfach, Zweifach, BA of Education 1. Studienjahr (2. Semester) Erkenntnistheorie (ET) Übung: Grundlagentexte der zeitgenössischen 501020003 A. Englander Sprachphilosophie Di. 12-14 Uhr, Inst. F. Phil. Großer ÜR [1.070] ET Übung: Rorty- Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature 501020004 M. Geier Di. 08:30-10 Uhr, Inst. F. Phil. Großer ÜR [1.070] ET Übung: Denken als Probehandeln 501020001 B. Hennig Mo. 12-14 Uhr, Inst. F. Phil. Großer ÜR [1.070] ET Übung: Die Realismus-Antirealismusdebatten 501020002 J. Voosholz in der theoretischen Philosophie Mi. 14-16 Uhr, Inst. F. Phil. Großer ÜR [1.070] ET Logik und Grundlagen (LG) Übung: Argumentationstheorie 501020006 V. Knoll Di. 18-20 Uhr, Inst. F. Phil. Großer ÜR [1.070] LG Übung: Einführung in die Sprachphilosophie 501020007 V. Knoll Mo. 18-20 Uhr, Inst. F. Phil. Großer ÜR [1.070] LG Übung: Introduction to Analytic Philosophy 501020008 S.
    [Show full text]
  • Whence Philosophy of Biology?
    Forthcoming in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science Whence Philosophy of Biology? Jason M. Byron A consensus exists among contemporary philosophers of biology about the history of their field. According to the received view, mainstream philosophy of science in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s focused on physics and general epistemology, neglecting analyses of the ‘special sciences’, including biology. The subdiscipline of philosophy of biology emerged (and could only have emerged) after the decline of logical positivism in the 1960s and 70s. In this paper, I present bibliometric data from four major philosophy of science journals (Erkenntnis, Philosophy of Science, Synthese, and the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science), covering 1930-1959, which challenge this view. 1 Introduction 2 Methods 3 Results 4 Conclusion 1 Introduction As a subdiscipline of philosophy of science, philosophy of biology is young. Philosophical discussion of various aspects of the living world is of course ancient. Scholars have been doing ‘philosophy of biology’, in this sense, from at least the time of Aristotle. But only in the 1980s and 90s did philosophers of science establish philosophy of biology as an academic field.1 For example, the first (partial) philosophy of biology journal, History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, commenced publication only in 1979. Four others would follow: Biology and Philosophy (first published in 1986), Ludus Vitalis: Revista de Filosofía de las Ciencias 1 General philosophy of science, in contrast, became a professional discipline by the late 1950s (Douglas [forthcoming]). 2 de la Vida (in 1993), Jahrbuch für Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie (in 1994), and Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (in 1998).
    [Show full text]