This volume distinguishes between two main traditions in the philosophy of science - the aristotelian, with its stress on explanation in terms of purpose and intentionality, and the galilean, which takes causal explanation as primary. It then traces the complex history of these competing traditions as they are manifested in such movements as positivism, idealism, Marxism and contemporary linguistic analysis. Hempels's theory of scientific explanation, the claims of cybernetics the rise of an analytic philosophy of action and the revival of (...) hermenuetics are all discussed. The volume also deals with causal explanation, intentionality and teleological explanation, and explanation in history and the social sciences. The author concludes that explanation of human actions cannot be reduced to simple causality, and discusses the implications of this conclusion for the disciplines of history and sociology. (shrink)

Abstract.If norms are neither true nor false, can logical relations such as contradiction and entailment obtain between them? Earlier logical positivists and also Hans Kelsen in his later years have answered the question with No. While appreciating the seriousness of the problem, the author of the present paper makes a fresh attempt to answer the question with Yes. His answer presupposes that norms can be judged from the point of view of their rationality. The deontic loic or logic of norms (...) built on this foundation is much more restricted, however, than tae “classical” systems. This again is a consequence of the author's opinion that the sentential connectives (negation, conjunction, disjunction, etc.) apply to norms only on condition that they can be “shifted” from joining norm‐formulations to the descriptive contents of the norms themselves. (shrink)

History and Philosophy of Science reprints a distinguished selection of important texts published in this field over the last century. This set presents a unique opportunity to gain comprehensive coverage of all aspects of the history and philosophy of science. It covers all major fields of scientific thought throughout history from Physics, Biology, and Cosmology to ESP and Alchemy. It includes texts on all the great historical scientific figures including Darwin, Copernicus, Archimedes and Hooker and covers all main themes in (...) science taking in creation, evolution, the development of scientific methodology and the future of science. For further information on this collection please email [email protected]. (shrink)

Om den teknologiske tids verdensbillede.

The discovery, in various quarters, of hitherto unknown letters exchanged between Wittgenstein and the chief of his Cambridge friends provides the basis for this new and profoundly revealing collection. Wittgenstein appears in turn shy and affectionate, fierce and censorious, happy to collaborate and sure of his own judgement. Four quarrels and four reconciliations are documented. Wittgenstein's struggles to publish his Tractatus may be followed, as well as his retreat from the world, his being wooed back to philosophy by Keynes and (...) Ramsey, and his plans to leave philosophy. The accompanying editorial notes are based on archival material not previously explored. Taken together, the correspondence provides an intriguing insight into Wittgenstein's life and thought, and will be essential reading for students and scholars. (shrink)

The author recalls a distinction between philosophy conceived as “analytics of truth” and philosophy as “ontology of the actual.” The latter might be seen as a diagnostics of our times. For this second type of philosophy questions of legitimation are prominent. According to the author, one can distinguish three main sources of legitimacy of beliefs and practices: religion, reason, and nature. Reason has been considered the most important legitimating ground as far as modernity is concerned. Nevertheless, it has never been (...) very clear what reason as a source of legitimation amounts to. The author, finally, points to the fact that, in times of increasing menace to the biosphere, “nature”– metaphorically speaking – may set a standard for human laws. (shrink)

The dialogue focusses on the distinctions and connections between law and morality. Morality is seen as axiological in character, whereas law is deontological. The possibility of a conceptual tie between goodness (axiology) and duty (deontology) is firmly disputed. Habermas's discursive foundation of ethics is criticized because it seems to confer on moral principles the status of a priori synthetic truths. Every moral idea has a cultural relativity which is not taken into account by Habermasian dialogue ethics. The moral and the (...) legal points of view are kept separate: A law which does not satisfy the requirements of a “minimum content” of natural law is not said to be “law,” but simply falling short of moral criteria. The possibility of introducing rational guarantees into moral discourse is not denied, but doubt remains as to whether there are “right answers” to moral questions. (shrink)