Resumo: Rorty tem sido por vezes caracterizado como o mais carbonário e destrutivo dos pensadores americanos. Este retrato parece ser confirmado por sua adoção de um historicismo radical que poderia ser entendido como equivalente ao abandono de toda forma de racionalismo. Nestes termos, não surpreendentemente, passa a ser um perfeito exemplar daquilo que expoentes da velha guarda epistemológica qualificam escandalizadamente como "perigos para a Civilização Ocidental".Neste contexto, a tarefa premente que se coloca é a de se aniquilar a verdadeira dimensão (...) do repto rortyano à filosofia contemporânea: seria seu ataque à ortodoxia realmente apropriado? Ou seria ele mais consistente do que se afirma com variantes racionalistas? Minha intenção é a de enfrentar estas questões e apontar o que me parece ser uma falha de Rorty na interpretação do projeto racionalista.: Rorty has been for several times characterized as the most revolutionary and destructive among the American Philosophers. This portrait seems to be confirmed by its adoption of a radical historicism which might have been understood as equivalent to the abandon of all form rationalism. In these terms, not surprisingly, it becomes a perfect example of what exponents of the old epistemological group scandallizedly qualify as "threats to the western civilization".In this context, the proposed urgent task is to evaluate the real dimension of Rotyan challenge to contemporary philosophy: would his assault on orthodoxy be really appropriate? Would it be more consistent than what is affirmed through rationalist alternatives? My intention is to face these questions and point what is for me Rorty's failure concerning the comprehension of rationalist project. (shrink)

Under the axiom of choice, every first countable space is a Fréchet-Urysohn space. Although, in its absence even ℝ may fail to be a sequential space.Our goal in this paper is to discuss under which set-theoretic conditions some topological classes, such as the first countable spaces, the metric spaces, or the subspaces of ℝ, are classes of Fréchet-Urysohn or sequential spaces.In this context, it is seen that there are metric spaces which are not sequential spaces. This fact raises the question (...) of knowing if the completion of a metric space exists and it is unique. The answer depends on the definition of completion.Among other results it is shown that: every first countable space is a sequential space if and only if the axiom of countable choice holds, the sequential closure is idempotent in ℝ if and only if the axiom of countable choice holds for families of subsets of ℝ, and every metric space has a unique equation image-completion. (shrink)

El sustantivo πραπίς / πραπίδες presenta diversos usos en los poemas homéricos, de acuerdo con diferentes campos semánticos que van desde lo anatómico a lo cognoscitivo. Desde la Antigüedad se intentó clarificar el sentido básico del término, equiparándolo con los distintos campos semánticos que comprende elsustantivo φρήν / φρένες. El término no aparece nunca en singular en los poemas homéricos sino siempre en plural. Este trabajo pretende clarificar, en general, la significación del término y, en particular, el sentido que adquiere (...) cuando es empleado en singular, apelando tanto al recurso de reconstrucción de una hipotética raíz indoeuropea como a conceptos de la teoría cognitiva-prototípica como los de conceptualización, metonimización, metaforización y modelización. (shrink)

It is well known that, in a topological space, the open sets can be characterized using ?lter convergence. In ZF , we cannot replace filters by ultrafilters. It is proven that the ultra?lter convergence determines the open sets for every topological space if and only if the Ultrafilter Theorem holds. More, we can also prove that the Ultra?lter Theorem is equivalent to the fact that uX = kX for every topological space X, where k is the usual Kuratowski closure operator (...) and u is the Ultra?lter Closure with uX := {x ∈ X: [U converges to x and A ∈ U ]}. However, it is possible to built a topological space X for which uX ≠ kX, but the open sets are characterized by the ultra?lter convergence. To do so, it is proved that if every set has a free ultra?lter, then the Axiom of Countable Choice holds for families of non-empty finite sets. It is also investigated under which set theoretic conditions the equality u = k is true in some subclasses of topological spaces, such as metric spaces, second countable T0-spaces or {ℝ}. (shrink)

A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by the researcher Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like (...) Shepard’s Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points (SAP), recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized. (shrink)

Journal of the History of Biology provides a fifty-year long record for examining the evolution of the history of biology as a scholarly discipline. In this paper, we present a new dataset and preliminary quantitative analysis of the thematic content of JHB from the perspectives of geography, organisms, and thematic fields. The geographic diversity of authors whose work appears in JHB has increased steadily since 1968, but the geographic coverage of the content of JHB articles remains strongly lopsided toward the (...) United States, United Kingdom, and western Europe and has diversified much less dramatically over time. The taxonomic diversity of organisms discussed in JHB increased steadily between 1968 and the late 1990s but declined in later years, mirroring broader patterns of diversification previously reported in the biomedical research literature. Finally, we used a combination of topic modeling and nonlinear dimensionality reduction techniques to develop a model of multi-article fields within JHB. We found evidence for directional changes in the representation of fields on multiple scales. The diversity of JHB with regard to the representation of thematic fields has increased overall, with most of that diversification occurring in recent years. Drawing on the dataset generated in the course of this analysis, as well as web services in the emerging digital history and philosophy of science ecosystem, we have developed an interactive web platform for exploring the content of JHB, and we provide a brief overview of the platform in this article. As a whole, the data and analyses presented here provide a starting-place for further critical reflection on the evolution of the history of biology over the past half-century. (shrink)

This last result leads, rather naturally, to some concluding observations and a series of questions for further investigation. These case studies show that in all of the sites examined, the institutionalization of molecular biology as a “discipline” was primarily driven by the need to separate groups of practitioners with divergent but overlapping interests within the local context. Thus molecular biology was contingently separated from agricultural or medical biochemistry, virology, work on the physiology of nucleic acids, and so forth for contingent (...) local institutional reasons. This makes it even more pressing to try to understand how molecular biology came to be delimited on a larger scale. How did it come to be a discipline with specific intellectual content (or did it?), including some problems, tools, and practices and excluding others? How did it gain authority as the forefront biological science by the mid-1960s? We need to understand the ways in which the tensions between different practices, projects, aims, understandings of the goals of molecular biology, and so on were resolved, on what scale and in what venues, so that something approximating the political character of a discipline, rather than a federation, was achieved. If these case studies provide a sound starting point, it will nevertheless prove difficult to answer the interconnected questions implicit here satisfactorily.One means of getting at such questions that should prove of considerable interest is to examine carefully the work of those who were widely cited in the papers of the late fifties through the mid-seventies by the people now considered major founders of molecular biology. By studying the contributions of those who are now omitted in the standard histories and recollections, we will gain a clearer sense of the possibilities that were open as molecular biology took shape. It is already widely recognized that the contributions of a number of biochemists have been given short shrift, but (as the example of Ernest Gale in Rheinberger's study illustrates) there are a great many more figures whose line of work were then crucial but who are now overlooked.6 To understand both what molecular biology was at the time of its early institutionalization and what is has become, it will be enormously helpful to understand at what point the definition or ideology “hardened” and the grounds for inclusion and exclusion of individuals and lines of work were reformed. Studies of this sort are appropriate in many other areas as well, of course; in general, they should different histories, political standing, and institutional bases of those disciplines in their national cultures. It is likely (but a matter for investigation!) that such differences influenced the opportunities for introducing new bench practices, if in no other way than by delimiting the niches within which certain practices could be initiated.7 And since new practices can fail to achieve their objectives, can transform the direction of work and disciplinary allegiances of their practitioners, can lead to only routine results, or can open up important new vistas, the character of the available niches from which to work can prove to have a strong influence on the direction that new work takes if and when it starts to flourish. A key aspect of this problematic (not yet adequately studied, I believe) is the problem of drawing boundaries between different kinds of work and determining where each should fit among established disciplines and/or within some new construct. To the extent that an “international” solution is ultimately achieved to such problems, it must surely be achieved in light of initially different ways of dealing with it in different countries.Underlying work of the sort we have been exploring is the thorny problem of how best to contextualize the work being studied. This, I believe, is one of the major historiographic problems that we must face in the history of science. It is by no means a new problem, of course, but a particularization of the age-old problem of the (seeming) overdetermination of historical events. If we deal with local cultures, to understand how they develop and their fate we need to understand their location within larger cultures. But it is utterly unclear how to draw appropriate boundaries on the relevant larger culture(s). As even this brief discussion has shown, institutional cultures, the cultures of sponsoring agencies, “the” culture of science (or of biological science, physical science, etc., as appropriate), and national cultures all can provide relevant contexts, all can occasionally determine the fate of work undertaken in a particular local context. The potentially intractable problem of delimiting the boundaries of investigation looms large here, but it is one that must be faced explicity if we are to profit fully from the enormously stimulating investigations of local cultures exemplified in the four papers published in this symposium. My own view is that we have no abstract standard available for determining which boundaries are appropriate to a given study, and, indeed, that no single contextualization is adequate to the examination of any given case, but that, nonetheless, we can (at least sometimes) distinguish useful and explanatory delimitations of the larger context from others that prove to be misleading.Against this background, I hope that the four papers published in this special issue will stimulate the readers of the JHB to carry out similar studies—that is, studies that seek to characterize and contextualize local experimental cultures —over a wide range of cases. I also hope that some of those who take up this challenge will deal with the larger questions raised by the need to find a way of balancing different, sometimes competing, contextualizations of such studies. The fact that any given case requires multiple contextualizations, resulting in multifaceted representations no one of which is alone adequate, will surely land us in fascinating, hopefully fruitful and productive, controversies. (shrink)

Em 1377, o célebre bispo de Oviedo, Gutierre Gómez de Toledo, celebrou um sínodo reformista em que se promulgaram diretrizes para a ação do clero, incluindo uma constituição sobre a ação catequética na diocese. Apregoava o prelado que “como, segundo as ordenações dos santos padres, a principal carga e cura devem haver os que têm alguns súditos” consistia em ensiná-los as lições pelas quais seriam salvos”. Por isso, os arciprestes e curas eram obrigados a apresentar “aos seus súditos e (...) paroquianos os feitos divinais e virtuosos. (shrink)

It is consistent with ZF $\mathsf {ZF}$ set theory that the Euclidean topology on R $\mathbb {R}$ is not sequential, yet every infinite set of reals contains a countably infinite subset. This answers a question of Gutierres.