En este artículo se aborda la distinción contemporánea en filosofía de la ciencia entre una lógica del descubrimiento y una lógica de la investigación. Tal distinción opone el descubrimiento como acción creadora a la actividad científica. A partir de la distinción entre lógica y razonamiento, se sugiere que es plausible recuperar el descubrimiento como parte de la actividad científica, contrario a planteamientos como los de Popper.

El propósito de este artículo es desarrollar una relectura al mecanicismo moderno. Esto implica que una adecuada comprensión de este consiste, ante todo, en considerarlo como un proyecto antes que un sistema doctrinal consolidado. Para ello se toma como eje la filosofía de Leibniz, la cual, a diferencia del cartesianismo, identifica las inconsistencias que implica concebir el mecanicismo como un sistema filosófico completo, principalmente al pretender justificar mecánicamente el mundo natural, esto es, a partir de la figura, el tamaño y (...) el movimiento. Todo lo anterior no implica un rechazo completo del mecanicismo por parte de Leibniz, sino que permite concebirlo como un medio para desarrollar su filosofía, proponiendo una complementariedad entre la causa final y la causa eficiente. de este modo, el mecanicismo es reubicado como un problema metodológico para la ciencia natural antes que como un problema metafísico. This article aims to develop a second reading to the modern mechanicism. This implies that an appropriate understanding of mechanicism consists, above all, in considering it as a project, instead of a consolidated doctrinal system. To do so, we take Leibniz's philosophy as our building blocks, since unlike the Cartesianism, it does identify the inconsistencies implied when we conceive mechanicism as a complete philosophical system, mainly under the pretension to justify the natural world mechanically, that is, based on the figure, size and movement. It does not imply that Leibniz rejects entirely mechanicism, but allows us to understand it as a mean to develop his philosophy, proposing a complementary relationship between final cause and efficient cause. This way, mechanicism is re-posed as a methodological issue for the natural science instead of a metaphysical issue. (shrink)

The article is focused on one of the first large armed conflicts between Japan and Soviet Union, the Battle of Lake Khasan, which took place in July, 31 - August, 11 1938. In this article, the author analyzes the data of the military casualties of the USSR and Japan in the result of the Battle of Lake Khasan, considering the documentary sources of both countries. To analyze the losses of the Red Army, the data given in the revised sources data (...) is recalculated and revised. By studying the casualties of the countries participating in the conflict, the author points out a great difference between the contemporary information of Russian historical researches on a problem and that of historians in the USSR. In addition, the author points out the mistakes of the Japanese researchers regarding the losses of the USSR and corrects them. It is shown in the article, which types of weapons were more effective considering the nature of the injuries, for example, artillery was very effective, but the bombing of Soviet aviation was almost inconclusive. The effectiveness of Japanese use of cold weapons during hand-to-hand fighting is shown, which is also evident through the nature of injuries. For the first time in Russia, all losses of the Japanese army were tabulated on the basis of the data of the Japan Ministry of Defense. This analysis gives an opportunity to evaluate the Battle of the Lake Khasan from the new side. (shrink)

The article is focused on one of the first biggest armed conflicts between Japan and Soviet Union, battle of lake Khasan, which took place in July, 31 - August, 11 1938. The author analyses the battle of lake Khasan from the perspective of Japanese troops, which draw some conclusions from the conflict. The author considers them as the ‘lessons that Japan learned‘. In particular, the merits and drawbacks of the Japanese army’s actions were analyzed. Drawbacks include problems with supplies and (...) equipment for army, command’s uncoordinated action resulted in disability of Japanese aviation to participate in that armed conflict. Among the merits, strong spirit of the Japanese troops and their capacity to seize the initiative in battle can be named. The other merits were use of the different tactics to destroy enemy’s weapons in the rear of the battlefield, heroism of the sappers, who fought face-to-face against tanks. On the whole, the findings of the Japanese military coincided with an information taken from G. S. Lyushkov, who flew to Japan trying to escape Stalin’s Great Purge and who gave a lot of valuable information regarding the Soviet army to Japan. It should be noted that, on the one hand, the Russian historical science looks at the battle of lake Khasan as a victory of the USSR, on the other hand, in Japan historians are not inclined to believe that this armed conflict ended up with Japan’s defeat. It is believed that the USSR won primarily through the excellence in human resources and well-equipped troops, as well as due to the imperial decree on the prohibition of attacks. (shrink)

Kasahara, Javier. “Una relectura leibniziana al mecanicismo.” _Eidos_ 22 (2015): 35-48.