On blindness and emptiness
a historical view to the debate on the relations between history and philosophy of science
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18270/rcfc.v18i37.2568Keywords:
History of science, historiography of science, philosophy of science, scientific normativity, scientific norms, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, economics of scientific knowledegeAbstract
Since the last third of the 20th century, philosophy of science has been strongly influenced by reflection and debate on the relation it should have with history (or historiography of science). The origin of these debates was Popper’s and Kuhn’s discussion about whether the historical fact (shown by the latter) that flesh and bone scientists regularly followed practices that contradicted the falsificationism defended by the former had to be taken as a refutation of falsificationism as a theory of science, or if it just implied that scientists fail often to fulfil the normative principles that should govern their activity as scientists. This paper offers a survey on the debate about the relation between history and philosophy of science, paying special attention to the normativity question. In fact, the last section presents a theory of scientific norms that attempts to mediate in the debate.
Downloads
References
Achinstein, P. “Historia y filosofía de la ciencia: una respuesta a Cohen”. La estructura de las teorías científicas. Ed. Frederick Suppe. Madrid: Editora Nacional, 1979. 393-404.
Agassi, J. Towards an Historiography of Science. Gravenhage: Mouton & Co, 1936.
Agazzi, E. “What Have the History and Philosophy of Science to do one Another”. Probabilistic Thinking, Thermodynamics, and the Interaction of the History and Philosophy of Science. Eds. Jaakko Hintikka, David Gruender y Evandro Agazzi. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1981. 241-48.
Amsterdamski, Stefan. Between History and Method: Disputes about the Rationality of Science, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993.
Andersson, G. Criticism and the History of Science: Kuhn's, Lakatos's and Feyerabend's Criticisms of Critical Relationalism. E.J. Brill, Leiden; New York, 1994.
Ayer, A. J. Comp. El positivismo lógico. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1965.
Barona, J. Ll. Ciencia e historia. Debates y tendencias en la historiografía de la ciencia. Godella: Seminari d’Estudis sobre la Ciència, 1994.
Burian, R. M. “More than a Marriage of Convenience: On the Inextricability of History and Philosophy of Science”. Philosophy of Science 44 (1977): 1-42.
Carnap, R. “Testability and Meaning”. Philosophy of Science 3 y 4 (1936-1937) 419-471 y 1-40.
Chalmers, A. F. ¿Qué es esa cosa llamada ciencia? Madrid: Siglo XXI, 1993.
Chattopadhyaya, D. P. Anthropology and Historiography of Science, Athens, Ohio University Press, 1990.
Cohen, I. B. “La Historia y el filósofo de la ciencia”. La estructura de las teorías científicas. Ed. Frederick Suppe. Madrid: Editora Nacional, 1979. 349-392.
Dear, P. “Cultural History of Science: An Overview With Reflections”. Science, Technology and Human Values 20.2 (1995): 150-170.
Díez Calzada, J. A. “La revuelta historicista en filosofía de la ciencia”. Arbor: Ciencia, pensamiento y cultura 526 (1989): 69-96.
Echeverría, J. Introducción a la metodología de la ciencia. La filosofía de la ciencia en el siglo XX. Madrid: Tecnos, 1999.
Estany, A. Modelos de cambio científico. Barcelona: Crítica, 1990.
________. 2000 “Historia y filosofía de la ciencia: ¿en qué términos establecemos la relación?”. Actas del III Congreso de la Sociedad de Lógica, Metodología y Filosofía de la Ciencia en España, San Sebastián, Universidad del País Vasco. Eds. Mary Sol de Mora et al. 399-407.
Finocchiaro, M. A. History of Science as Explanation. Detroit: Wayn State University Press, 1973.
________. “On the Importance of Philosophy of Science for the History of Science”. Synthese 42 (1979): 411-441.
________. “Aspects of the Logic of History-of-Science Explanation”. Synthese 62 (1985): 429-54.
Fleck, L. La génesis y el desarrollo de un hecho científico. 1935. Madrid: Alianza, 1986.
Fuller, S. “Is History and Philosophy of Science Withering on the Vine?”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 21 (1991): 149-74.
Gallison, P. “History, Philosophy and the Central Metaphor”. Science in Context 2.1 (1988): 197-212.
Garber, D. “Learning from the Past: Reflections on the Role of History in the Philosophy of Science”. Synthese 67 (1986): 91-114.
Giere, R. Science Without Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.
González Recio, J. L. “El compás, la lanceta y el crisol: retratos de la naturaleza durante el nacimiento de la ciencia moderna”. Llull 22 (1999): 405-17.
Hacking, I. Representar e intervenir. México: Paidos, 1996.
Hahn, R. “New Directions in the Social History of Science”. Physis 17 (1975): 205-218.
Hall, R. J. “¿Se puede utilizar la historia de la ciencia para decidir entre metodologías rivales?”. Historia de la ciencia y sus reconstrucciones racionales. Ed. Imre Lakatos. Madrid: Tecnos, 1974. 107-119.
Hankins, T. “In Defence of Biography: The Use of Biography in the History of Science”. History of Science 17.1 (1979): 1-16.
Hanson, N. R. What I Do not Believe and Other Essays. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1971.
Hatfield, G. “The Importance of the History of Science for Philosophy in General”. Synthese 106 (1996): 113-138.
Kragh, H. Introducción a la historia de la ciencia. Barcelona: Crítica, 1989.
Kranzberg, M. “The Uses of History in Studies of Science, Technology and Society”. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 10.1 (1990): 6-11.
Kuhn, T. S. La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. Ed. Frederick Suppe. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1971.
________. “Notas sobre Lakatos”. Historia de la ciencia y sus reconstrucciones racionales. Ed. Imre Lakatos. Madrid: Tecnos, 1974. 79-95.
Lakatos, I. Historia de la ciencia y sus reconstrucciones racionales. Madrid: Tecnos, 1974.
________. La metodología de los programas de investigación científica. Madrid: Alianza, 1983.
Lakatos Imre y Alan Musgrave. La crítica y el desarrollo del conocimiento. Barcelona: Grijalbo, 1975.
Laín Entralgo, P. “¿Para qué la historia de la ciencia?”. Arbor 142 (1992): 13-20.
Laudan, L. Science and Values. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.
________. El progreso y sus problemas. 1977. Madrid: Encuentro, 1986.
Lepenies, W., P. Weigart y Loren Graham. Eds. Functions and Uses of Disciplinary Histories. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1983.
Lindholm, L. M. “Is Realistic History of Science Possible?”. Scientific Philosophy Today. Essays in Honor of Mario Bunge. Eds. Mario Agassi y Robert Cohen. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1981. 159-186.
López Piñero, J. M. “Las etapas iniciales de la historiografía de la ciencia. Invitación a recuperar su internacionalidad y su integración”. Arbor 142 (1992): 21-67.
Losee, J. “Whewell and Mill on the Relation Between Philosophy of Science and History of Science”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 14.2 (1983): 113-126.
________. Filosofía de la ciencia e investigación histórica. Madrid: Alianza, 1989.
McMullin, E. “The History and Philosophy of Science: A Taxonomy”. Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science. Ed. Roger H. Stuewer. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1970. 12-67.
________. “History and Philosophy of Science: A Marriage of Convenience?”. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 32 (1975): 515-531.
________. “La filosofía de la ciencia y sus reconstrucciones racionales”. Progreso y racionalidad en la ciencia. Eds. Gerard Radnitzky y Gunnar Andersson. Madrid: Alianza, 1982. 201-226.
Medina, E. “La polémica internalismo/externalismo en la historia y la sociología de la ciencia”. Revista española de investigaciones sociológicas 23 (1983): 53-75.
Moulines, C. U. “On How the Distinction Between History and Philosophy of Science Should Not Be Drawn”. Erkenntnis 19 (1983): 285-296.
Murdoch, J. E. “Utility versus Truth: At Least One Reflection on the Importance of the Philosophy of Science for the History of Science”. Probabilistic Thinking, Thermodynamics, and the Interaction of the History and Philosophy of Science. Eds. Jaakko Hintikka, David Gruender y Evandro Agazzi. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1981. 311-320.
Newton-Smith, W. H. La racionalidad de la ciencia. Barcelona: Paidós, 1987.
Nickles, T. “Remarks on the Use of History as Evidence”. Synthese 69.2 (1986): 253-266.
________. “Engaging Science: How to Understand Its Practices Philosophically”. Isis 88.2 (1987): 379-381.
Pyenson, L. ““Who the Guys Were”: Prosopography in the History of Science”. History of Science 15.3 (1977): 155-188.
________. “El fin de la Ilustración: reflexiones próximas y lejanas sobre la Historia de la Ciencia”. Arbor 142 (1992): 69-91.
Radder, H. “Philosophy and History of Science: Beyond the Kuhnian Paradigm”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science a.28 (1997): 633-655.
Reichenbach, H. Experience and Prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938.
Ribes, D. “Relaciones entre historia y filosofía de la ciencia”. Llull 1 (1977): 25-34.
Rivadulla, A. Filosofía actual de la ciencia. Madrid: Tecnos, 1986.
Rossi, P. Las arañas y las hormigas. Una apología de la historia de la ciencia. Barcelona: Crítica, 1990.
Ruse, M. “Do the History of Science and the Philosophy of Science Have Anything to Say to Each Other?”. Proceedings of the Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2 (1993): 467-496.
Sánchez Ron, J. M. “Historia de la ciencia: perspectivas historiográficas”. Arbor 142 (1992): 9-12.
Shapin, S. “History of Science and its Sociological Reconstructions”. History of Science 20 (1982): 157-211.
Shapin, S. “Discipline and Bounding: The History and Sociology of Science as Seen through the Externalism-Internalism Debate”. History of Science 30.4 (1992): 333-369.
Shapin, S. y A. Thackray. “Prosopography as a Research Tool in History of Science: The British Scientific Community, 1700-1800”. History of Science 12.1 (1974): 1-28.
Smart, J. J. C. “Science, History and Methodology”. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 23.3 (1972): 248-268.
Sneed, J. The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1971.
Ten, A. E. “Sobre algunos tipos de acercamiento a la historia de la ciencia y la tecnología”. Arbor 130 (1988): 35-54.
Vicedo, M. “Is the History of Science Relevant to the Philosophy of Science?”, Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2 (1993): 490-496.
Wartofski, M. “The Relation between Philosophy of Science and History of Science”. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 39 (1976): 717-737.
Williams, L. P. “Should Philosophers Be Allowed to Write History?”. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 26 (1975): 241-253.
Zamora Bonilla, J. P. “Úteros en alquiler”. Isegoría 18 (1998): 205-212.
________. “Truthlikeness, Rationality and Scientific Method”. Synthese 122 (2000): 321-335.
________. “Dinámica de redes teóricas”. Desarrollos actuales de la metateoría estructuralista: problemas y discusiones. Ed. José A. Díez y Pablo Lorenzano. Universidad de Quilmes, 2002. 145-164.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
| Article metrics | |
|---|---|
| Abstract views | |
| Galley vies | |
| PDF Views | |
| HTML views | |
| Other views | |
