Les grandes controverses historiographiques se sont généralement déroulées sur plusieurs fronts. L’article essaie de replacer les débats actuels dans le contexte et l’horizon de différentes expériences de recherche afin de dégager leur apport théorique et empirique. En envisageant surtout les rapports controversés entre histoire sociale et anthropologie historique, il cherche à dégager les récurrences qui le lient à d’autres débats dont les moments forts autour de 1800 et de 1900 reflètent des crises aux connotations politiques mais aussi aux conséquences épistémologiques (...) évidentes. (shrink)

Die Beiträge in diesem Buch sind in transkultureller Perspektive Problemen der Epistemologie, der Anthropologie, der Ethik und der politischen Philosophie gewidmet. Unter dem Titel Menschsein - On Being Human diskutieren koreanische und deutsche Philosophen Themen der einen Welt: Universale und lokale Diskurse über Kultur und Transkulturalität im Zeitalter der Globalisierung, die Rolle der Religionen, öffentliche Rationalität, transkulturelle Gerechtigkeit und Universalität von Menschenrechten. The contributions in this book are from a transcultural perspective and devoted to problems in epistemology, anthropology, (...) ethics and political philosophy. Under the title Menschsein - On Being Human, Korean and German philosophers discuss topics to do with one world: universal and local discourses about culture and transculturality in the age of globalization, the role of religion, public rationality, transcultural justice, and the universality of human rights. (shrink)

Im Zentrum des Bandes steht die Frage nach dem Zusammenhang von Erkenntnis- und Wissenschaftstheorie im Kontext der mittelalterlichen Rezeption der Texte des Aristoteles an Hof und Universitäten, und dabei insbesondere der für die Epistemologie einschlägigen Passagen in De anima und in den Zweiten Analytiken sowie ihre spätantike und arabische Vermittlung. In diesem komplexen Rezeptions- und vor allem Transformationsprozeß werden zugleich die wissenschaftlichen und gesellschaftlich-institutionellen Grundlagen für den okzidentalen Prozeß der Rationalisierung und der Aufklärung gelegt, deren "Dialektik" nicht nur die (...) Geschichte Europas bis zum heutigen Tag bestimmt. Die Beiträge des Bandes vermitteln damit nicht nur einen umfassenden und bisher in der Forschung in dieser Form nicht geleisteten Überblick über Reichweite und Grenzen der epistemologischen Debatten im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert sowie ihren jeweiligen historischen Ort in der Wissenskultur des Mittelalters, sondern stellen darüber hinaus in ihrer Gesamtheit auch einen Beitrag dar zu Fragen der Epistemologie der Gegenwart, etwa zum Problem der Axiomatik der Wissenschaften. Die Publikation schließt damit nicht nur ein Desiderat in der Erforschung der mittelalterlichen Philosophie, sondern bildet zugleich einen genuinen Beitrag zu gegenwärtigen Fragestellungen der Epistemologie. (shrink)

Im Zentrum des Bandes steht die Frage nach dem Zusammenhang von Erkenntnis- und Wissenschaftstheorie im Kontext der mittelalterlichen Rezeption der Texte des Aristoteles an Hof und Universitäten, insbesondere der für die Epistemologie einschlägigen Passagen in "De anima" und in den "Zweiten Analytiken" sowie ihre spätantike und arabische Vermittlung. In diesem komplexen Rezeptions- und vor allem Transformationsprozeß werden zugleich die wissenschaftlichen und gesellschaftlich-institutionellen Grundlagen für den okzidentalen Prozeß der Rationalisierung und Aufklärung gelegt, deren "Dialektik" nicht nur die Geschichte Europas bis (...) zum heutigen Tag bestimmt. (shrink)

La psychologie historique d’Ignace Meyerson est habituellement présentée comme opposée à l’épistémologie de son oncle Emile Meyerson , fondée sur le « principe d’identité ». Toutefois, dans les écrits d’Ignace conservés dans ses archives personnelles, un certain nombre de notes le révèlent proche du système de son oncle. L’objet de ce texte est d’éclaircir le rapport intellectuel entre l’oncle et le neveu. A la lecture de leur correspondance, entre 1922 et 1933, apparaissent quatre points de discussion. L’interprétation de Lévy-Bruhl, la (...) relation d’Ignace avec le positivisme, les rapports entre la perspective épistémologique d’Emile et le regard psychologique d’Ignace sur le rôle des images dans la pensée, la notion de « transcendance » du réel qui, d’après Emile englobe l’ensemble de leurs discussions antérieures.It has been frequently said that Ignace Meyerson’s historical psychology was opposed to his uncle Emile Meyerson’s « principle of identification » based epistemology. However, when reviewing Ignace’s writings at his personal archives, a number of notes evincing his agreement with his uncle’s system calls the reader’s attention. The aim of this paper is to clarify the complex intellectual relationship between uncle and nephew. For this purpose, we will analyze their « philosophical » correspondence from 1922 to 1933. We can clearly identify four main points of discussion : Lévy-Bruhl’s interpretation, Ignace’s relation to positivism, the relations between Emile’s epistemological perspective and Ignace’s psychological outlook as to the role of images in thought, the notion of « transcendent reality », and according to Emile it encompassed all their previous disputes. (shrink)

The process of artistic creation represents a research subject that involves diverse theoretical and methodological challenges. Thus, for example, the question of the epistemological dimension of artistic creation poses itself and of whether philosophical investigation of the processes of creation demands a special epistemology that goes beyond the classical theory of knowledge. In this article both questions are answered in the positive. At the same time it is argued that the philosophical investigation must go beyond a purely conceptual and (...) theoretical level, because the concrete processes of creation point to discrete aspects of activity that are theoretically demanding. For this reason an analysis of methodological approaches is essential where it concerns an approach to the artistic praxis. Both the theoretical and the practical research problems thus compell aesthetics to a closer interleaving with empirical social science and the theory of practice. (shrink)

Dominantn pozitivistick epistemologie dat v souasn vd, kter stav na metafyzickm realismu a idelu mechanick objektivity, trp adou trhlin. Tyto nedostatky byly identifikovny v mnohch kritickch ohlasech, kter vedou k nov problematizaci ustlenho konceptu dat. Mezi kritizovanmi aspekty tohoto konceptu se opakuj varovn ohledn zasazenosti dat do kontextu jejich tvorby, jejich zprostedkovanost nebo otevenost manipulacm. Funkce dat v poslednch letech nabv na dleitosti kvli stoupajc datov nronosti vdy, a proto je dve neproblematickmu konceptu dat vnovno vce pozornosti. Objevuj se (...) tak alternativn pstupy k epistemologii dat, z nich tato prce pedstavuje smr konstruktivistick a rtorick. Prezentovan text lze dky sv kompilativn povaze, erpajc z kritick literatury zabvajc se epistemologi dat, pojmout jako syntzu a rekonfiguraci existujcch mylenek k danmu tmatu. Je mon ho rovn pijmout jako jeden z pspvk k rtorick argumentaci v diskurzu dat souasn vdy. (shrink)

The work of Michel Serres, if considered at all, is often presented as a radical break with or criticism of the work of Gaston Bachelard. The aim of this paper is to correct this image, by focusing on the early Hermes series by Serres. In these studies Serres still portrays himself as a follower of Bachelard, rather than an adversary. This is exemplarily shown in his neologism, i.e. the new new scientific spirit, referring to the attempt to update Bachelard in (...) the light of more recent scientific developments. This shows how the roots of Serres’ philosophy lie not in a radical break with Bachelard, but must be understood rather as a Bachelardian criticism of Bachelard himself. This Bachelardian criticism consists in what could be called his surrationalism: the sciences do not follow the categories imposed by philosophers, but are always more flexible and open than these categories allow. The philosopher should follow this scientific flexibility, rather than trying to contain it in his or her categories. Instead of abandoning Bachelard’s perspective, Serres’ criticisms can therefore be understood as a radicalisation of Bachelard’s thought. Specific critiques of Serres, such as those concerning the novelty of Bachelard’s thought, the role of epistemology, the role of normativity, and finally the role of politics, and their consequences will be evaluated through a reappraisal of this Bachelardian move that underlies Serres’ criticism. Finally, this can also open a path to reassess the relation between Bachelard and Bruno Latour or Isabelle Stengers, who can be considered as followers of Serres. (shrink)

"Wie kommt es, dass sich der Flagship-Store eines Technikkonzerns präsentiert wie eine öffentliche Kunsthalle, während die Dependance des Louvre in Nord-Pas-de-Calais wirkt, als würde man eine iPad-Benutzeroberfläche betreten? Der Beitrag liefert eine Analyse des Louvre Lens und beleuchtet das Projekt in Hinblick auf seine verblüffenden ästhetischen Familienähnlichkeiten in Materialsprache, Struktur und Atmosphäre zu neueren Apple Stores. Dabei wird versucht, die kulturellen und mentalitätsgeschichtlichen Codes zu entziffern und zu plausibilisieren, dass sich hier eine Epistemologie entfaltet, die die Welt als simultan (...) präsentes Symbolsystem begreift. How is it that the flagship store of a technology company presents itself as a public arthall, while the branch of the Louvre in Nord-Pas-de-Calais looks like the user interface of an iPad? The paper provides an analysis of the Louvre Lens and illuminates the project in terms of its stunning aesthetic similarities in material language, structure and atmosphere to recent Apple Stores. Furthermore, it attempts to decipher the cultural and mental-historical codes and argues that an epistemology is developing here which comprehends the world as a simultaneous symbolic system. ". (shrink)

Outside France the epistemology of G. Bachelard is unknown ; in France his influence is considerable, especially on philosophers like L. Althusser, M. Foucault, G. Canguilhem, J. Hyppolite, M. Serres, G. G. Granger, D. Lecourt and many others. Bachelard occupies a strategic point on the crossroads of all theoretical debates concerning science. The fact that he seems to give satisfactory answers on the problems which have risen after the breakdown of the logical-positivistic philosophy of science, justifies an exposition and (...) evaluation of his original contribution to philosophy. The author distinguishes the following items. 1. The determination of Bachelards philosophy as a scientific philosophy which is wedded to a history of the sciences, especially the natural sciences. 2. The 'systematicity' as the criterium of science against other, traditional, criteria like empiricalness, logical deducibility, correspondence with reality and so on. 3. The rectification-principle : the formation of a scientific system cannot be conceived otherwise than as the restructuring or reorganisation of the ruling system or system-sets. 4. The transformation of scientific knowledge shows many discontinuities in all its phases and branches. Bachelard calls them ruptures. 5. The translation of a theory into another, more coherent and comprehensive one, is baptised as a 'dialectisation' of the concept. By a dialectisation a system is both generalised and specified. Formal logic, which is based on identity and the principle of the excluded middle, is not able to interprete this dynamic aspect of scientific thinking. 6. Central in Bachelards philosophy is also the concept of recurrence. Each new organisation of the scientific system (global or partial) sheds new light on their history and their logical foundations. History has to be rewritten after each progress. Recurrence, however, also has systematic implications. Science always desimplifies its own evidences. 7. The scientist has to demolish the obstacles which he made himself by surcharging the content of the concepts not in use and by not assimilating them in the system. 8. Bachelards philosophy of science is both idealistic and realistic ; the phenomenology becomes phenomenotechnique under the hands and in the brains of the scientist. 9. He always denies (negativity) the earlier theories and objects by incorporating them in new relationships. 10. This constructive aspect of theory formation is the same in natural science and mathematics. Bachelard opposes the logical-positivistic idea that these are methodically dissimilar. In a critical commentary the author discusses the question of 'dialectical logic' in the sciences, in relation to some recent research in this field by I. Lakatos en Errol E. Harris. In his opinion the epistemology of Bachelard affords a creative renewal of the understanding of science, although further research is needed in many aspects. (shrink)

This paper addresses the conception of theology developed by Giles of Rome from the Reportatio of his lecture on the second book of the Sentences to his fifth Quodlibet. It demonstrates that, from the beginning of his career, Giles discredited the power of philosophical reason in the realm of theology, a discipline which he conceived as a defensive, rhetorical and exegetical practice. Henry of Ghent was the principal adversary attacked by Giles, who challenged the scientific legitimacy of theology which Henry, (...) after Thomas Aquinas, had established as the highest speculative discipline. In the conclusion, the paper highlights strong similarities between Giles’ theological epistemology and Godfrey of Fontaines’ conception and practices of university sciences. (shrink)

This paper addresses the conception of theology developed by Giles of Rome from the Reportatio of his lecture on the second book of the Sentences to his fifth Quodlibet. It demonstrates that, from the beginning of his career, Giles discredited the power of philosophical reason in the realm of theology, a discipline which he conceived as a defensive, rhetorical and exegetical practice. Henry of Ghent was the principal adversary attacked by Giles, who challenged the scientific legitimacy of theology which Henry, (...) after Thomas Aquinas, had established as the highest speculative discipline. In the conclusion, the paper highlights strong similarities between Giles’ theological epistemology and Godfrey of Fontaines’ conception and practices of university sciences. (shrink)

The logic of media usage is determined by the self-blinding of the materiality of the medium in the act of its transmitting function. According to the traditional topos of the ‘dying messenger’, a messenger-oriented model of mediality is developed. Contrary to the appearance of the ‘vanishing’ medium, a critical media philosophy has to depict that and how media always shape and constitute what they represent. One phenomenon mostly being invisible in our normal use of texts and pictures is the medium (...) of ‘artificial flatness’ within the framework of a ‘cultural technique of flattening’: scientific, technical and artistic creativity is inconceivable without two-dimensional inscriptions in the form of writings, graphs, diagrams and maps. But how can this imprinting power of inscribed and illustrated surfaces be grasped if at the same time the role of media is understood in terms of transmission, connection, intermediation? Our suggestion is to describe the shaping power of media by the concept of ‘transfiguration’: From a transfigurative perspective, the medium only reveals itself as a trace on its content. Traces are visible transformations in the mode of latency. To manifest this latency, to make the implicit explicit, is then a task of media philosophy. As examples of such a critical-epistemological reflection, the relationship between writing and language, as well as between map and territory, is discussed. (shrink)

Le socle de la culture contemporaine est d’ordre anthropologique. Cette problématique fait de l’homme son référent épistémologique. Dans la mesure où la théologie reste tributaire d’une épistémologie strictement métaphysique, son discours peine à se faire entendre dans l’espace de la modernité. La présente réflexion se propose de dégager les problématiques à l’œuvre dans ces deux épistémologies et se demande, en finale, comment la théologie pourrait se déployer dans une culture de modernité.

Maupertuis conflates Leibnizian arguments with a form of empiricism which Locke and Newton had inspired. In physics, he applies an optimum principle in order to generate a « system » ; and his teleology of the maximum saving is meant to counterbalance apparent discontinuities within empirical properties and laws. In physiology, the Leibnizian model is put to a different use. The Vénus physique suggests that the elementary organic parts are so adapted as to combine and reproduce a living organism ; (...) and the Système de la nature fosters the analogy of the physiological « monad » as a theoretical notion. The epistemological unity of Maupertuis's theory of science depends upon the regulatory constraints he imposes on the empiricist methodology. (shrink)

Cet essai entend montrer les liens unissant les théories épistémologiques humanistes de Ficin, Pomponazzi et Cues, telles qu'elles apparaissent à travers leur réception de la philosophie grecque antique et de la philosophie médiévale, plus particulièrement du Théétète de Platon et du De anima d'Aristote. Il montre que, précédant l'opposition entre le scheme platonicien de la connaissance prôné par Ficin et l'exposé aristotélicien sur l'intellect dont Pomponazzi s'est fait le chantre, Cues avait tenté d'articuler la nature de l'esprit en soi, que (...) tout mode de connaissance présuppose. This essay explores the interconnections among the humanistic epistemological theories of Ficino, Pomponazzi and Cusanus apparent in the context of their reception of ancient Greek and medieval philosophy, especially Plato's Theaetetus and Aristotle's De anima. It shows that preceding the opposition between the Platonic scheme of knowledge favored by Ficino and the Aristotelian account of the intellect championed by Pomponazzi, Cusanus attempted to articulate the nature of the mind as such which all modes of knowledge presuppose. (shrink)

Cet article s’interroge sur le statut épistémologique des fictions employées en théorie politique, dont l’état de nature constitue l’un des cas exemplaires. Contre les critiques relativistes et celles d’inspiration marxiste , on montre que l’utilisation des fictions obéit à des règles précises du point de vue de leur finalité et de leur justification, ce qui interdit de considérer toutes les fictions comme équivalentes. Cette problématique est illustrée à partir de la théorie des fictions développée par le philosophe néokantien Hans Vaihinger (...) et en la comparant avec l’usage des fictions tel qu’on le trouve illustré dans les écrits scientifiques et politiques de Thomas Hobbes .This article addresses the question of the epistemological status of fictional discourse in political theory, the « state of nature » being one of its paradigmatic examples. Against both relativism and Marxist critiques , it is argued that the use of fiction obeys to well-defined rules from the point of view of their finality and justification, which forbids us to consider all fictions as equivalent. This problem is illustrated by means of a presentation of the theory of fictions developed by the Neo-Kantian philosopher Hans Vaihinger and by comparing it to the use of fictions as found in the scientific and political writings of Thomas Hobbes. (shrink)

Encyclopedia article about "reformed epistemology".

Im Mittelpunkt des vorliegenden Bandes steht die Untersuchung des Selbstverständnisses der praktischen Wissenschaften, wie es sich im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert im Umkreis der Höheren Fakultäten der Universität sowie insbesondere innerhalb der Philosophie artikuliert. Die Frage nach der Wissenschaftsfähigkeit des überlieferten juristischen und medizinischen Wissens sowie jene nach dem wissenschaftlichen Anspruch der Praktischen Philosophie, insbesondere der philosophischen Ethik, und der Theologie, verstanden als einer "scientia practica", beschreiben die Herausforderung, mit der sich die hier behandelten Autoren und Texte des Mittelalters beschäftigen. (...) Insbesondere werden in den in diesem Band versammelten Einzeluntersuchungen die Beiträge von Albert dem Großen, Thomas von Aquin, Johannes Duns Scotus und Wilhelm von Ockham zur Frage einer philosophischen Begründung des Status des menschlichen Handlungswissens und der praktischen Wissenschaften gewürdigt. (shrink)

In this paper, we investigate the constitutive problems and other several aspects of what a research entitled 'formal epistemology' should be. The interest in this subject has to do with the possibility of reaching a privileged point of view or axis of research - i.e., the 'formal' one - that would allow, a better grasp of the richness and variety of the facts and problems tackled by precise (local) epistemology of theories (for example, in physics). This approach is (...) likely to enable one to hold the main structural lines that organize those theories according to a more com prehensive, unifying and synthetic intelligibilit. By the same token, it would eventually allow a better handling of the changes required in the organization of knowledge, putting emphasis on its main directions, drawing up a rational inventory of this knowledge, and perhaps anticipating others. At first, we deal with the `thought of changes' that no approach of the 'form' can afford to leave aside, since the meaning of this concept is inseparable from the contents that come with constructions and modifications. We examine then the notion of 'epistemic operation' as an instrument to create new forms on the theoretical as well as on the meta-theoretical levels. ln the wake of it, we analyze the characteristics of the form and of the formal, as well as their relationship with the contents of knowledge. We also take the notion of object into account, since it depends upon the decision of a subject and upon conventional choices. We finally inquire about the link between `epistemic operations' as specified above and algorithmic functions for knowledge statements, and emphasize the risk of reductionism that might follow from a naturalistic conception of representation. (shrink)

Genetic epistemology analyzes the growth of knowledge both in the individual person (genetic psychology) and in the socio-historical realm (the history of science). But what the relationship is between the history of science and genetic psychology remains unclear. The biogenetic law that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is inadequate as a characterization of the relation. A critical examination of Piaget's Introduction à l'Épistémologie Généntique indicates these are several examples of what I call stage laws common to both areas. Furthermore, there is (...) at least one example of a paradoxical inverse relation between the two — geometry. Both similarities and differences between the two domains require an explanation, a developmental explanation. Although such an explanation seems to be psychological in nature, it is not merely empirical but also normative (since psychology is both factual and normative according to Piaget). Hence genetic epistemology need not be reduced to psychology (narrowly conceived), but rather should be seen as being both empirical and normative and thus similar to certain types of contemporary philosophy of science. (shrink)

In this paper, we investigate the constitutive problems and other several aspects of what a research entitled 'formal epistemology' should be. The interest in this subject has to do with the possibility of reaching a privileged point of view or axis of research – i.e., the 'formal' one – that would allow a better grasp of the richness and variety of the facts and problems tackled by precise (local) epistemology of theories (for example, in physics). This approach is (...) likely to enable one to hold the main structural lines that organize those theories according to a more comprehensive, unifying and synthetic intelligibility. By the same token, it would eventually allow a better handling of the changes required in the organization of knowledge, putting emphasis on its main directions, drawing up a rational inventory of this knowledge, and perhaps anticipating others. At first, we deal with the 'thought of changes' that no approach of the 'form' can afford to leave aside, since the meaning of this concept is inseparable from the contents that come with constructions and modifications. We examine then the notion of 'epistemic operation' as an instrument to create new forms on the theoretical as well as on the meta-theoretical levels. In the wake of it, we analyze the characteristics of the form and of the formal, as well as their relationship with the contents of knowledge. We also take the notion of object into account, since it depends upon the decision of a subject and upon conventional choices. We finally inquire about the link between 'epistemic operations' as specified above and algorithmic functions for knowledge statements, and emphasize the risk of reductionism that might follow from a naturalistic conception of representation. (shrink)

[Popper and the Scepticisms of Evolutionary Epistemology, or, What Were Human Beings Made for?].

This article addresses the question whether or not, in his Ethics, Spinoza is committed to a naturalized epistemology. In the first step, the cognitive psychological principles involved in the concept of imagination are discussed. It is shown that Spinoza does indeed suggest a causal account for the contents of human thought, yet, in contrast to many psychologist views he does not privilege physicalist explanations, but allows for historical as well as for linguistic accounts. In the second section, a similar (...) differentiation is made in regard to the theory of common notions. Whereas in claiming that human minds necessarily have adequate knowledge of certain properties of things, Spinoza does rely on certain psychological facts, his concept of common notions can better be explicated independently of psychological assumptions. A conclusive argument against a naturalist interpretation of Spinoza′s epistemology, however, is given in the third section via the analysis of the concepts of 'truth′ and 'true idea′. It shows that Spinoza not only embraces the idea of an epistemic normativity, but moreover admits the irrecucibilityof this normativity to natural properties. Since, in respect to moral normativity, Spinoza exhibits quite a different attitude, it can be assumed that he never wanted to provide naturalized epistemology. (shrink)

Positivist medical historians, guided by the savoir of modern western biomedicine, have long depicted medieval medicine as an aberration along the continuum of scientific and medical progress. Historical epistemology, founded in the ideas of Cavailles, Foucault, Davidson, and Hacking, however, allows the historian to disrupt this false continuum and to unchain medieval medicine from modern medicine. Postmodernist approaches, such as those sourced in Lyotard, Barthes, and Derrida, allow the historian to further deconstruct medieval and modern medical discourse, revealing a (...) multitude of narrative lenses spinning around biomedical and biocultural strands. In liberating these two medical systems and setting them within the distinct historical and epistemological contexts that both shaped and were shaped by them, the historian can revision the theories, practices, and culture of medieval medicine without having to anachronistically justify them according to modern medical discourse. (shrink)

Based especially on The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912) the text tries to delimitate contours of „Durkheim’s epistemology“ (i. e. relatively coherent group of assertions). It argues that the deep „objective“ of this connection is to ensure autonomy and specific field for the new-born scientific province, sociology, through the claim that this contribution can solve and actually does solve (from the French sociologist’s point of view) „traditional epistemological hardships“ into which philosophical empiricism and rationalism fall. Durkheim’s sociological deduction (...) of categories (instead of transcendental deduction), as Ernst Cassirer calls it, is presented in contrast to the „holy positivists interpretations“ of his writing, exclusively intentional conceptualizations of action and notion formation, and correspondence theory of truth. The text concludes that despite noticeable inconsistencies Durkheim’s suggestions provide inspiring material even for today’s sociological production in this field. (shrink)

Political epistemology is the name of an ambitious task. In order to aptly conceptualise the internal relationship between truth and knowledge on one side, and politics and society on the other side, political epistemology must reformulate the concepts of epistemology and social and political theory. For the concept of knowledge, this task implies to consider the truth and the force of knowledge equally. Frieder Vogelmann shows in his book the far-reaching consequences of this endeavour: for the contemporary (...) debate about untruth in politics, for the possible forms of social critique, and for the reflection upon philosophy and its history. (shrink)

Luc Faucher Dans cet article, je soulèverai un problème qui a été négligé jusqu’ici dans les écrits portant sur la philosophie de la psychiatrie au sujet du Research Domain Criteria : le fait que l’initiative découle des priorités de recherche du National Institute of Mental Health et que l’orientation de celles-ci ne permet pas de traiter certains aspects des conditions des patients qui sont jugés essentiels par ceux-ci. Après avoir démontré l’existence de ce problème, je vais tenter de voir par (...) quel moyen on pourrait l’éviter. Pour ce faire, je considérerai un programme, européen cette fois, le Roadmap for Mental Health Research in Europe et sa méthode pour intégrer une diversité de voix, dont celles des patients, dans le processus d’établissement des priorités de recherche. Je me livrerai ainsi à un exercice d’épistémologie sociale comparée en montrant comment certaines caractéristiques organisationnelles d’un des programmes possèdent des vertus épistémiques qui font défaut à l’autre et comment une plus grande justice épistémique pourrait être obtenue par l’implantation de certains mécanismes qui permettent à la voix des patients d’être entendue. (shrink)

History Without Causality. How Contemporary Historical Epistemology Demarcates Itself From the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Contemporary proponents of historical epistemology often try to delimit their enterprise by demarcating it from the sociology of scientific knowledge and other sociologically oriented approaches in the history of science. Their criticism is directed against the use of causal explanations which are deemed to invite reductionism and lead to a totalizing perspective on science. In the present article I want to analyse this line (...) of criticism in what I consider are two paradigmatic works of contemporary historical epistemology: Lorraine Daston's und Peter Galison's Objectivity and Hans‐Jörg Rheinberger's Toward a History of Epistemic Things. I first present their arguments against the sociological and causal analysis of scientific knowledge and practice and then try to defend sociological work in the history of science against their charges. I will, however, not do so by defending causal explanations directly. Rather, I will show that the arguments against sociological analysis put forward in contemporary historical epistemology, as well as historical epistemology's own models of historical explanation and narration, bear problematic consequences. I argue that Daston, Galison and Rheinberger fail to create productive resonances between macro‐ and microhistorical perspectives, that they reproduce an internalist picture of scientific knowledge, and finally that Rheinberger's attempt to deconstruct the dichotomy between subject and object leads him to neglect questions about the political dimension of scientific research. (shrink)

Verrassend misschien voor filosofen buiten Frankrijk, maar in Parijs is wetenschap altijd een object van filosofische reflectie geweest – niet in de vorm van de analytische wetenschapsfilosofie zoals die buiten Frankrijk wordt onderwezen, maar onder de noemer van historische epistemologie, of soms ook wel kortweg épistémologie genoemd. Dit themanummer wil een inleiding zijn op deze traditie in haar denkers.

RésuméInterprétation de ľépistémologie gonséthienne qui à la fois prend une certaine liberté et vise une comprehension profonde. Selon cette interprétation, Gonseth propose une connaissance à deux étages: a) une étage intuitif, informel, proche des préoccupations quotidiennes et de Paction, qui s'exprime en langage naturel et dont les concepts gardent une certaine souplesse: c'est, dans la métaphore du béton, le ciment; b) un étage de théorie ou de schémas simplificateurs, plus rigides, qui ne représentent jamais totalement ľétage inférieur: c'est les cailloux (...) du béton, qui ne sont pas autonomes, mais sont plongés dans la connaissance intuitive dont ils sont issus et qui leur donne leur sens. A ces deux étages, il faut encore ajouter un étage qui serait la ≫réalité≪, car ľétage intuitif est déjà une schématisation. Entre ces trois étages s'établissent des ≫correspondances schématiques≪ et les schémas sont jugés selon leur idonéité.SummaryAn interpretation of Gonseth's epistemology that takes certain liberties as well as aiming at deeper understanding. On this interpretation, Gonseth suggests that there are two levels of knowledge: an intuitive and informal level close to everyday concerns and to action, which ist expressed in natural language and involves concepts that retain a certain flexibility ; a level of theory or of simplifying schemes, which are more rigid and never entirely represent the lower level. In addition to these two levels, there is a further one which would be ≫reality≪, for the intuitive level is already a schematization. ≫Schematic correspondanee≪ is established between the three levels, and the schemes are judged according to their idoneity. (shrink)

The first intention of this article is to show, with some essays of Marcel Mauss, how his way of studying cultural facts anticipates the structural analysis method in anthropology.The concept of "fait social total" is confronted with the concept of structure as developed by Claude Lévi-Strauss, so that we could see the similarities and the distinctions.As well as reconstructing a decisive period of the history of structuralism within the French philosophical and sociological tradition, this article seeks to show the elements (...) of Mauss1s contribution to structuralist anthropology and in a more general why his contribution to the epistemology of the social sciences. (shrink)

Die Physik nimmt aus zwei Gründen eine herausragende Stellung unter den Wissenschaften ein. Zum einen aufgrund ihrer anerkannten Stellung als Grundlagenwissenschaft, und zum anderen auch durch das Merkmal ihrer offenkundigen Erkenntnissicherheit. Aus beiden Gründen gilt sie gewissermaßen als Paradigma von Wissenschaftlichkeit schlechthin. Mit ihrem Fokus auf das Thema der Erkenntnissicherheit tritt die Wissenschaftstheorie in die Fußstapfen der klassischen Erkenntnistheorie, und darauf gründet sich auch ihr 'richterlicher' Anspruch gegenüber der Physik. Wohingegen die Physik in puncto ihrer Stellung als Grundlagenwissenschaft – sogar (...) beim Thema Erkenntnis, wie der Anspruch des 'Reduktionismus' zeigt – in einem Konkurrenzverhältnis zur Philosophie und zur Erkenntnistheorie steht. Der thematische Fokus auf der Erkenntnissicherheit selbst ist es allerdings, der zur Wurzel eines tiefgreifenden epistemologischen Missverständnisses der Physik wird. Der Grund dafür ist ein zweifacher: Zum einen verstellt die Idee der Erkenntnissicherheit als Kriterium der 'Abgrenzung' zwischen Physik und Metaphysik den Blick auf die viel tieferen heuristischen Unterschiede der beiden Erkenntnisarten. Der zweite, damit zusammenhängende Grund ist, dass die Erkenntnistheorie nicht die Frage nach dem Grund der Erkenntnissicherheit der Physik stellt, sondern die Frage nach der 'Legitimation' der physikalischen Erkenntnis, und zwar, das ist entscheidend, mit Bezug auf die Deutung des Erkenntnisvorgangs. Dadurch fließen wie selbstverständlich alle epistemologischen Annahmen über diesen Vorgang – inklusive der geläufigen deskriptiven Erkenntnisauffassung und ihrer ontologischen Prämissen – in die Deutung der Physik als Wissenschaft ein. Dieses Unterfangen ist folglich nicht nur von Grund auf zweifelhaft, weil es zu seiner Sinnhaftigkeit seinerseits nicht weniger als Erkenntnissicherheit bezüglich (der Deutung) des Erkenntnisvorgangs voraussetzt, und sich dabei auf bloße Überzeugungen stützt, es führt außerdem durch die Projektion des deskriptiven, 'metaphysischen' Erkenntniskonzepts auf die Physik zu unlösbaren epistemologischen Problemen und entsprechenden resignativen Schlussfolgerungen. Der wirkliche Grund der Erkenntnissicherheit der Physik ist auf diese Weise aber gar nicht zu fassen, denn er liegt schlicht in der Eindeutigkeit der Messung. Deren Signifikanz ist aber nur verständlich im Rahmen des originären gegenstandsübergreifenden, dekonstruktiven Erkenntniskonzepts der Physik, dessen Fokus nicht auf den Gegenständen, sondern auf den dynamischen Phänomenen liegt. Der gegenstandsübergreifende, dekonstruktive Erkenntnisansatz bedingt ein völlig anderes, nicht-deskriptives Verständnis der physikalischen Konzepte, und betrifft so auch das Verständnis der Physik als Grundlagenwissenschaft, mit Konsequenzen auch für die Problemstellungen der Biologie und der Epistemologie. (shrink)

Following the standard view, scientific theories are formal systems, which receive empirical content by way of certain correspondence rules. The task of philosophy of science is then to make explicit the structure of such systems. In contrast to this view, one can point to the French tradition in philosophy of science. What characterizes this tradition is recourse to historical study, which has evolved from an attempt to bridge the fields of philosophy of science and history of science by a closer (...) integration of conceptual and historical methods. My aim in this paper is to explore the emergence of historical epistemology in France and its later revival at an international level. Attention is directed at the presuppositions and motivations underlying such an approach. (shrink)

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)

The concept of immanence occupies today a central and, at the same time, uncomfortable place among semioticians. Some criticize it overtly, others feel the concept has fulfilled its role as a methodological regulator of descriptions and its scope that should be enlarged so as to integrate context, practices, interactions, in short, the human experience. This paper presents immanence through another light. According to Hjelmslev’s.

The question of what ontological insights can be gained from the knowledge of physics (keyword: ontic structural realism) cannot obviously be completely separated from the view of physics as a science from an epistemological perspective. This is also visible in the debate about 'scientific realism'. This debate makes it clear, in the form of the importance of perception as a criterion for the assertion of existence in relation to the 'theoretical entities' of physics, that epistemology itself is 'ontologically loaded'. (...) This is in the form of the assumption that things in themselves (independent of cognition, in an autonomous way) exist as so-and-so determined ones. This ontological assumption is not only the basis of our (naive) conception of knowledge, but also its indispensable premise, insofar as this conception is a fundamentally passive, 'receptive' one. This is true to the full extent of metaphysics, and to a not much lesser extent of epistemology. The interpretation of knowledge in the sense of 'description' seems to be without alternative. In the philosophy of science, this view is reflected in the emphasis on 'objectivity' as the essence of science, in the belief in 'induction' as the traditional method of science, and (ex negativo) in the problem of the 'theory laden nature of observation'. To these paradigms of epistemology, however, a further aggravating factor is added, namely the criterion of 'subjective certainty' as evidence of 'real' knowledge (only meaningful on the basis of the ontological premise mentioned above). Thus, due to its 'expertise' in matters of knowledge, epistemology becomes the 'prima philosophia'. But what is even more important, the real, holistic cognitive situation is transformed into a linear cognitive relationship, with the consequence of the 'transcendence' of the objects. Now, on closer inspection, however, there is not too much in the expertise of epistemology, because it basically consists only of paradigms which, from the point of view of the holism of the real cognitive situation itself, are nothing more than relatively simplistic interpretations of this situation. However, we do not yet know what another conception of knowledge might look like (which is not surprising given the position of the phenomenon of knowledge in the hierarchy of phenomena according to their complexity). 'Certitude' as a criterion of cognition is thus excluded from the outset, and thus the linear relational model of cognition also appears as what it is, a gross distortion of the real, holistic situation of cognition. The significance of this argumentation with regard to physics is that the linear epistemological model of cognition itself is a major obstacle to an adequate epistemological understanding of physics. This is because it is fixed 'a priori' to an object-related concept of knowledge, and to 'description' as the only mode of ('real') knowledge. The acceptance of the real, holistic epistemological situation is therefore, in my opinion, the condition for an adequate understanding of physics' heuristic access to objects, its transcendental, generalizing epistemological concept, as well as its ontological relevance and dimension. (shrink)

Deux grandes manières de faire de l’épistémologie sociale se sont développées depuis une trentaine d’années. L’une relève de la philosophie analytique, l’autre hérite de la sociologie des sciences. Tandis que le relativisme menace celle-ci, la première souffre d’un parti pris fondamentalement individualiste. Ces limites ont servi de base à une critique réciproque qui a viré à la concurrence, voire à l’hostilité. Le présent article suggère qu’en appliquant leurs propres méthodes d’analyse à l’opposition même des épistémologies sociales, leurs représentants auraient dû (...) privilégier à la compétition la visée d’un accord de la communauté des chercheurs. (shrink)

Nous proposons dans la présente étude un parcours général dans la philosophie des sciences de Gaston Bachelard, emblématique de l’« épistémologie française ». Il s’agira de suivre les lignes de force de l’épistémologie bachelardienne, qui nous permettra d’analyser de façon détaillée et approfondie la construction du phénomène scientifique dans toute sa complexité, en intégrant dans un rationalisme ouvert l’étude des rapports entre science et philosophie, la question du sujet de la science, les relations dialectiques de la théorie et de l’expérience, (...) dans l’horizon d’un inachèvement fondamental de la connaissance. (shrink)

Im ersten Viertel des 20. Jahrhunderts war Zhang Dondsun einer der einflussreichsten Denker der Republik China, dessen Ansehen zum Teil auch dem Umstand zu verdanken war, dass er es wie kein anderer verstand, das abendländische Denken seinem Lebensraum auf eine Weise zu vermitteln, die mit der spezifischen Methodologie des traditionellen chinesischen Denkens kompatibel war. Zu seinen größten Verdiensten gehört ohne Zweifel die Entwicklung einer modernen Erkentnistheorie, die ihre Grundlagen im klassischen Chinesisch und in der chan-buddhistischen Epistemologie hat – was (...) in vielerlei Hinsicht eine angemessene Synthese moderner Wissenschaft und traditionellen chinesischen Denkens darstellt. Daher widmet sich dieser Artikel in erster Linie Zhang Dongsuns Theorie des Wissens. Der Philosoph selbst bezeichnete seine Theorie als „pluralistisch“ im Hinblick auf die These, dass unterschiedliche, das Verstehen und Schlussfolgern ermöglichende Elemente sich gegenseitig ausschlössen und nicht aufeinander rückführbar seien. Daher bemüht sich die Autorin um eine kritische Untersuchung der Elemente , die Zhang Dongsun in seiner epistemologischen Hauptschrift Plural Epistemology vorschlägt, in der seine Theorie am vollkommensten, systematisch und kohärent dargestellt wird. (shrink)

Fleck’s social theory of science refers to many ethnological examples in order to explain how collective thinking and acting constructs certain systems of belief and knowing. According to Fleck, scientific concepts and practices are comparable with magic terms and ceremonies. This essay aims to identify the ethnological sources that Fleck’s epistemology is using. By confronting them with other relativistic theories that were circulating in Lemberg during the interwar period, the originality of Fleck’s own position can be contextualized and explained (...) as well. (shrink)

Epistemologie a kognitivní věda se zabývají studiem procesů poznání. Z výsledků takového bádání vyplývají určité diagnostické a preskriptivní závěry s cílem pozitivně regulovat způsob myšlení. Předložená práce má za cíl ukázat, že epistemické a kognitivní studie nejsou doposud dostatečně vyvinuté, aby mohly kategoricky doporučit správný a universální způsob myšlení. Pokrok ve vědě je výsledek kolektivního úsilí nejen současnosti, ale i minulých objevů a omylů. Na historickém případě chybné teorie flogistonu se tato práce bude snažit doložit, že se na objevení (...) pravdy plodně podílí i nesprávné epistemické procesy. Tendence některých myslitelů dneška takové praktiky morálně odsuzovat na základě prevalence pseudovědeckých názorů je málo produktivní. Podrobné studium dynamiky chybující minulosti osvětlí poznávací proces lépe než soubor sterilních epistemických pravidel. (shrink)

In this expository article, a presentation is given of A.C. Crombie's life work in the history of science, Styles of Scientific Thinking in the European Tradition. The History of Argument and Explanation in the Mathematical and Biomedical Sciences and Arts (1994). The importance of this work for the philosophy of science and epistemology is comparable to the more renowned work of the 1960's and '70s, but threatens to be paradoxically overlooked because of its gigantic proportions. (No thorough study of (...) the book appeared up to now.) Crombie's earlier work started from a provocative version of continuism in the debate about the rise of modern science, ascribing the origin of the experimental tradition to methodological forebears in the thirteenth century (Grosseteste). Rather than revivifying this quarrel now, Crombie has offered us an emergentist picture of the rise of six subsequent major styles of science (using grand units of analysis) from the Greeks up to Darwin. These styles of thinking are superimposed upon another in that the definite breakthrough of each next style is consequent upon the recognition of the proper limits of the full grown previous style. In a first group, Crombie assembles three major styles for revealing regularities in individual phenomena, i.e. where the consideration of the collective to which the phenomenon belongs is not required for recognizing the regularity. Here we have (S1) the ancient style of postulating principles and entities according to a more or less apriorical evidence type or in axiomatic fashion; (S2) the experimental tradition from Alhazen up to Newton, and (S3) the style of hypothetical modelling, combining the former two in the vein of the rational artist as an (ultimately, also cognitive) engineer. In a second group the styles dealing with regularities discoverable only in a collectivity of phenomena are dealt with. Here we have the (S4) probabilistic style superimposed on the classical picture of rationality made up by the achieved styles in the first group. Then (S5) the taxonomic style is ready to be combined, finally, with S4, in order to discover the statistical economy of living nature in (S6), the 'genetic' style, culminating in Darwin's history of nature (which was to be expected). On the other hand, the latter style is traced back to the 16th and 17th century project of a history of languages and culture, of knowledge, and of mankind (which is a more surprising connection made by Crombie). In a final section some philosophical remarks are made regarding Crombie's project; mainly with respect to the larger perspective, in Crombie's terms, of an 'intellectual anthropology', or alternatively, in terms of a 'comparative epistemology'. Also the absence of a real analysis of the very concept of style is noted. (shrink)

Cet article examine les défis épistémologiques actuels de l’économie à travers le prisme de l’épistémologie des Lumières écossaises. Smith et Hume s’étaient concentrés sur la manière dont les connaissances (provisoires et incertaines) étaient formulées, en examinant comment des circonstances différentes engendrent et soutiennent différentes théories et approches. Sur cette base, nous explorons le discours actuel sur la manière dont les économistes doivent aborder les défis épistémologiques des situations de crise et leurs causes.

RésuméĽauteur commence par un bref diagnostic des tendances les plus notoires de ľépistémologie contemporaine, qui trouve dans ľopérationnalisme fonctionnaliste une ≫reponse≪ au paradoxe?une connaissance construite par transformation de ľobjet et elle relève les indications ≫thérapeutiques≪ qui se trouvent déja dans ľépistémologie de Gonseth, selon lesquelles il sera possible de réintégrer ľidée?objectivité et de vérité dans la connaissance. En trois aspects: dans le domaine de la méthodologie épistémologique – elle montre que Gonseth s'est aperçu de la valeur propédeutique?une gnoséologie scientifique, comme (...) condition de base?un abord cohérent de ľépistémologie. Dans le champ de la gnoséologie, elle montre que la coloration empiriste que Piaget a regretée dans les schémas gonséthiens, selon lui trop ouverts à un contact actuel et extérieur avec ľobjet, fournit, après tout, une indication aujourdi'hui précieuse pour contrebalancer les exagérations opposées?une gnoséologie qui fait, de ľautoréférence et de la clôture du sujet, ľune des justifications de ľimpossibilité de fonder objectivement la connaissance. Finalement, elle considère que, dans le champ?une lecture philosophique des sciences, le relativisme dialectique de Gonseth récupere la valeur pragmatique et?objectivité≫circonscrite≪ de la connaissance, sans pour autant abandonner ľidée?une progression en objectivité.SummaryThe author begins with a consideration of well‐known trends of contemporary epistemology, which finds in functionalist operationalism a ‘response’ to the paradox of knowledge achieved by transformation of the object. The author goes on to note the ‘therapeutic’ indications already available in the epistemology of Gonseth, which make it possible to reintegrate the idea of objectivity and of truth into knowledge. This is done in three respects. In epistemological methodology, it is shown that Gonseth was aware of the preparatory value of a scientific gnoseology as the fundamental condition for a coherent approach to epistemology. In gnoseology, it is shown that the empirical aspect of Gonseth's schemes, which Piaget found regrettable as being too open to immediate and exterior contact with the object, does after all provide an indication that is invaluable in offsetting the opposing exaggerations of a gnoseology that makes the self‐reference and closedness of the subject one of the justifications for the impossibility of founding knowledge objectively. Finally, it is held that, on a philosophical reading of the sciences, the dialectical relativism of Gonseth recovers the pragmatic value and the value of ‘circumscribed’ objectivity of knowledge, without in so doing giving up the idea of an increase in objectivity. (shrink)

RésuméĽauteur commence par un bref diagnostic des tendances les plus notoires de ľépistémologie contemporaine, qui trouve dans ľopérationnalisme fonctionnaliste une ≫reponse≪ au paradoxe ?une connaissance construite par transformation de ľobjet et elle relève les indications ≫thérapeutiques≪ qui se trouvent déja dans ľépistémologie de Gonseth, selon lesquelles il sera possible de réintégrer ľidée ?objectivité et de vérité dans la connaissance. En trois aspects: dans le domaine de la méthodologie épistémologique – elle montre que Gonseth s'est aperçu de la valeur propédeutique ?une (...) gnoséologie scientifique, comme condition de base ?un abord cohérent de ľépistémologie . Dans le champ de la gnoséologie , elle montre que la coloration empiriste que Piaget a regretée dans les schémas gonséthiens, selon lui trop ouverts à un contact actuel et extérieur avec ľobjet, fournit, après tout, une indication aujourdi'hui précieuse pour contrebalancer les exagérations opposées ?une gnoséologie qui fait, de ľautoréférence et de la clôture du sujet, ľune des justifications de ľimpossibilité de fonder objectivement la connaissance. Finalement, elle considère que, dans le champ ?une lecture philosophique des sciences, le relativisme dialectique de Gonseth récupere la valeur pragmatique et ?objectivité≫circonscrite≪ de la connaissance, sans pour autant abandonner ľidée ?une progression en objectivité.SummaryThe author begins with a consideration of well‐known trends of contemporary epistemology, which finds in functionalist operationalism a ‘response’ to the paradox of knowledge achieved by transformation of the object . The author goes on to note the ‘therapeutic’ indications already available in the epistemology of Gonseth, which make it possible to reintegrate the idea of objectivity and of truth into knowledge. This is done in three respects. In epistemological methodology, it is shown that Gonseth was aware of the preparatory value of a scientific gnoseology as the fundamental condition for a coherent approach to epistemology . In gnoseology , it is shown that the empirical aspect of Gonseth's schemes, which Piaget found regrettable as being too open to immediate and exterior contact with the object, does after all provide an indication that is invaluable in offsetting the opposing exaggerations of a gnoseology that makes the self‐reference and closedness of the subject one of the justifications for the impossibility of founding knowledge objectively. Finally, it is held that, on a philosophical reading of the sciences, the dialectical relativism of Gonseth recovers the pragmatic value and the value of ‘circumscribed’ objectivity of knowledge, without in so doing giving up the idea of an increase in objectivity. (shrink)

The paper discusses the relation of genesis and validity ( Genesis and Geltung ) within the historical epistemologies of Gaston Bachelard, Louis Althusser, and Michel Foucault. From the perspective of emerging knowledge I examine the co-evolution of discontinuous moments, epistemic practices, and objects of knowledge. Based on this analysis, the paper argues that validity ( Geltung ) should be understood as situated knowledge.