The article reviews the book Metodologia nauk [Methodology of the Sciences], by Adam Grobler.

The article reviews the book Metodologia nauk [Methodology of the Sciences], by Adam Grobler.

I agree with many of Adam Grobler’s theses, but several others raised my objection. (1) A.G. does not want to call scientific claims true. It is not so: very much of what scientists say about the world is true (in the classic sense), and scientists know it is. (2) A.G. leads us astray when he writes that the acceptance or rejection of hypotheses is determined, at least sometimes, by expert votes. It is not so: further research is the decisive (...) factor in accepting or rejecting hypotheses in science. (3) While A.G. is aware of some social determinants of knowledge, he ultimately states: “individuals are the subjects of scientific knowledge.” Contrary to this, I argue that one can only be a scientist as a member of a scientific thought collective. (4) A.G. believes that scientific knowledge is based on presuppositions, accepted unconsciously, that give meaning to statements made openly. After Wittgenstein, I repeat: “After all, nothing is concealed.”. (shrink)

If knowledge is factive, it is not voluntary. In the paper, I discuss this relation within the framework of the theory of knowledge proposed by Adam Grobler. It directly questions the factivity of knowledge and indirectly assumes voluntariness. So, in fact, this theory shows how the acceptance of voluntariness leads to the rejection of factivity. I argue that the exact opposite is true by defending the factivity of knowledge. I also show that Grobler’s theory of knowledge is the (...) variation of Lewis’s relevant alternative approach to knowledge. (shrink)

In his latest book, Adam Grobler gives an ingenious account of the main issues of contemporary epistemology, and puts forward an original sandwich theory of knowledge. The paper brings to light pragmatic threads of Grobler’s views, including his approach to scepticism, to the justification of induction, and to the notion of truth. It is suggested that the idea of relative truth, currently rigorously elaborated by John MacFarlane, would be more useful for his purposes than the notion of truth (...) as superassertibility proposed by Crispin Wright. (shrink)

This paper considers Adam Grobler's fallibilism as an attractive alternative for both epistemological fundationalism and nihilism. Fallibilism claims that science is only a collection of temporary opinions, which entails rejecting of the idea of justification in aid of establishing critical preferences. In Grobler's thought that role is played by the conclusion to the best explanation (abductionism). Grobler's ideas dismantle the belief that relativity implies relativism. This paper deals with several Grobler's problems, such as theory-ladeness thesis (interpretation (...) of observation), problems of facts, litigation of absolutism with relativism. I claim that problem of epistemic interests should be viewed as theoretical, e.g. considered as an element of our background knowledge, or wider philosophical framework (for example metaphysics). Some formulations of local internal realism are subject to paradox of self-referentiality. (shrink)

Tytuł tego artykułu jest podwójną parafrazą. Jest parafrazą tytułu głośnej monografii Alfreda Tarskiego Pojęcie prawdy w językach nauk dedukcyjnych, a jednocześnie jest też parafrazą tytułu artykułu Adama Groblera Pojęcie prawdy w językach nauk empirycznych. Sygnalizuje też pewien istotny związek rzeczowy z przedsięwzięciami obydwu panów. Podobnie jak Tarski w odniesieniu do nauk formalnych i Grobler w odniesieniu do nauk empirycznych, próbuję zbadać, czy klasyczna koncepcja prawdy może być efektywnie stosowalna również w naukach humanistycznych. Po rekonstrukcji i krytycznej analizie propozycji Tarskiego (...) stwierdzam, że o ile w naukach logiczno-matematycznych pojęcie prawdy jako prawdziwości w modelu zdaje się wystarczać, to w naukach empirycznych i humanistyce trudno jest uznać za zadowalające, ponieważ „nie sprowadza nas z drzewa języka”. Poszukiwanie trafnego modelu rzeczywistości za pomocą reguł inferencji i reguł empirycznej weryfikacji wiedzy także wydaje się mało skuteczne. W humanistyce bowiem dla konfrontacji modelu z rzeczywistością niezbędne wydaje się jeszcze uwzględnienie pewnych reguł rozumienia. Inaczej świat artefaktów i wartości będzie pozostawał dla nas całkowicie zakryty/niedostępny. A przeto i nasza konfrontacja z nim za pośrednictwem rozmaitych modeli - jeśli istotnie ma nas skutecznie chronić przed „ślepą” wędrówką po konstelacjach światów możliwych lub widmem bezdusznej naturalizacji - musi być oparta na takich regułach rozumienia i regułach sensu, które umożliwią nam źródłowe odsłonięcie specyficznych dla poszczególnych dziedzin przedmiotowych jakości oraz nadbudowanych nad nimi jednostek sensu i wartości. (shrink)

This book is the second of two volumes devoted to the work of Theo Kuipers, a leading Dutch philosopher of science. Philosophers and scientists from all over the world, thirty seven in all, comment on Kuipers’ philosophy, and each of their commentaries is followed by a reply from Kuipers. The present volume is devoted to Kuipers’ neo-classical philosophy of science, as laid down in his Structures in Science . Kuipers defends a dialectical interaction between science and philosophy in that he (...) views philosophy of science as a meta-science which formulates cognitive structures that provide heuristic patterns for actual scientific research, including design research. In addition, Kuipers pays considerable attention to the computational approaches to philosophy of science as well as to the ethics of doing research. Thomas Nickles, David Atkinson, Jean-Paul van Bendegem, Maarten Franssen, Anne Ruth Mackor, Arno Wouters, Erik Weber & Helena de Preester, Eric Scerri, Adam Grobler & Andrzej Wisniewski, Alexander van den Bosch, Gerard Vreeswijk, Jaap Kamps, Paul Thagard, Emma Ruttkamp, Robert Causey, Henk Zandvoort comment on these ideas of Kuipers, and many present their own account. The present book also contains a synopsis of Structures in Science. It can be read independently of the first volume of Essays in Debate with Theo Kuipers, which is devoted to Kuipers’ From Instrumentalism to Constructive Realism. (shrink)

Geology is an example of the "historical-natural" sciences, and it combines methodological elements of typical natural sciences, as physics, and the methodological elements of history. As a result, there are some problems with placing it in the classification of sciences. The article consists of two parts. In the first one there is presented in short form process of developing of modern geology. Using as examples the ideas of James Hutton, Georges Cuvier and Charles Lyell the author shows how the opinion (...) about proper method and aims of geology was changing at the turn of 18th and 19th centuries. The final point of the process was the classification of sciences presented by William Whewell, who classified geology as a palaetiological science. The second part of the article is devoted to the place of geology in the contemporary classifications of sciences presented by main Polish methodologists. There are discussed the classifications of Kazimierz Twardowski, Tadeusz Kotarbiński, Władysław Tatarkiewicz, Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz, Władysław Krajewski and Adam Grobler. (shrink)

Social constructivists use to say that economists cannot study objective reality, absolute truth does not exist, and economic knowledge is being constructed, not discovered and it depends on temporary culture. Realists notice and admit social conditions which may affect economic theories and unrealistic assumptions of models, but they claim that these models describe the real world, at least to some extent. The notions of truth and reality are crucial in both of these concepts. In this papar they are analysed based (...) on Hilary Putnam theory developed by Adam Grobler. (shrink)

The notion of conceptual system is usually connected with criticism or defence of relativism but sometimes the notion appears in discussion on realism/anti-realism. The aim of the article is: (1) to present connection between understanding of notion of conceptual system and ways of understanding of realism/anti-realism; (2) to present that notion may constitute a foundation of argument for realism, although usually it is taken as argument for anti-realism. Investigations of the article create the basis for discussion of the conception of (...) relativity proposed by Adam Grobler in Truth and Relativity. (shrink)

The purpose of the present article is to propose a research project which will analyse the issue of theoretization of empirical data which takes place in the process of formulating scientific problems. J. Hintikka’s interrogative model of inquiry will serve us as a starting point for our considerations. First, his proposal of viewing the theory-dependence of facts will be characterized. Then, with reference to the results of K. Jodkowski, three interpretations of theory-laden thesis will be given: a radical, a modest (...) and a weak one. This will render it possible to further develop a critique of certain aspects of Hintikka’s conception. Subsequently, the critique will provide a basis for presenting a new way of viewing theory-dependence of empirical data. Some considerations regarding a possible use of the received conceptual scheme for analyzing certain problems of philosophy of science will close the article. A possibility of analyzing such classical problems as falsification and the use of the principle of auto-determinacy in science will also be offered. Lastly, with reference to A. Grobler’s analyses, a possibility of representing a process of rejecting metaphysical presuppositions in science will be considered. (shrink)

In the article the possibility of an access to reality, and thus the possibility of an attainment of truth is discussed. In the contrary of Adam Grobler's claims it is argued that the problem with the relation language-reality is not an interpretation of a language in a way fitting the reality, but a search for an appropriate language, a conceptual frame to grasp recognized phenomena. So a recognition of reality is primary, not a language.

Contents: PART 1. MODELS IN SCIENTIFIC PROCESSES. Joseph AGASSI: Why there is no theory of models. Ma??l??gorzata CZARNOCKA: Models and symbolic nature of knowledge. Adam GROBLER: The representational and the non-representational in models of scientific theories. Stephan HARTMANN: Models as a tool for the theory construction; some strategies of preliminary physics. William HERFEL: Nonlinear dynamical models as concrete construction. Elzbieta KA??L??USZY??N??SKA: Styles of thinking. Stathis PSILLOS: The cognitive interplay between theories and models: the case of 19th century optics. PART (...) 2. TOOLS OF SCIENCE. Nancy D. CARTWRIGHT, Towfic SHOMAR, Maricio SUAREZ: The tool-box of science. Javier ECHEVERRIA: The four contexts of scientific activity. Katline HAVAS: Continuity and change; kinds of negation in scientific progress. Matthias KAISER: The independence of scientific phenomena. W??l??adys??l??aw KRAJEWSKI: Scientific meta-philosophy. Ilkka NIINILUOTO: The emergence if scientific specialities: six models. Leszek NOWAK: Antirealism, realism and idealization. Rinat M. NUGAYEV: Classic, modern and postmodern scientific unification. Veikko RANTALA: Translation and scientific change. Gerhard SCHURZ: Theories and their applications - a case of nonmonotonic reasoning. Witold STRAWI??N??SKI: The unity of science today. Vardan TOROSIAN: Are the ethic and logic of science compatible. PART 3. UNSHARP APPROACHES IN SCIENCE. Ernest W. ADAMS: Problems and prospects in a theory of inexact first-order theories. Wolfgang BALZER and Gerhard ZOUBEK: On the comparison of approximative empirical claims. Gianpierro CATTANEO, Maria Luisa DALLA CHIARA, Roberto GIUNTINI: The unsharp approaches to quantum theory. Theo A.F. KUIPERS: Falsification versus efficient truth approximation. Bernhard LAUTH: Limiting decidability and probability. Jaros??l??aw PYKACZ: Many-valued logics in foundations of quantum mechanics. Roman R. ZAPATRIN: Logico-algebraic approach to spacetime quantization. (shrink)

The article concerns the epistemological views of Adam Grobler contained in his book Epistemologia (2019). The first part of the article lists the basic goals that were set for the philosophical theory of knowledge, namely, distinguishing types of knowledge, discovering the essence of knowledge, describing and assessing human epistemic situation in the world, considering the most general idea of knowledge, confronting the issue of global skepticism, grounding human knowledge, considering the issue of starting point in philosophy, showing the genesis (...) of human knowledge (Kant, Husserl), considering the phenomenon–reality opposition and the opposition of categories of being and categories of thinking, abandoning the maximalistic epistemology in favour of naturalized epistemology. In the second part of the text, Adam Grobler’s epistemological position is diagnosed as (pragmatically motivated) skepticism. (shrink)

In the text, I analyze Grobler᾽s strategy of countering skepticism. It boils down to two arguments, i.e. a performative contradiction and the use of the ceteris paribus clause. Another point is the concept of truth adopted by Grobler. Grobler is leaning towards the adjustment theory and aletic pluralism. I formulate critical remarks about truth as identity, the markup theory, super-conclusiveness, and finally truth as a regulative idea. I am also considering two additional requirements of Grobler, namely (...) that the truth should be interesting and knowledge should have rich applications. I argue that the application requirement is always fulfilled. (shrink)

This small book—six essays in 89 pages of text—is well worth reading. The essays are the proceedings of a conference on Popper’s philosophy which was held in Warsaw in March of 1995. As the title promises, they offer some insights into the significance of Popper’s thought (see, especially, the essays by Joseph Agassi and Ernest Gellner). They also contain perceptive critical comments and suggestions as to how we may use some of Popper’s results to move forward. In the first section, (...) entitled “Karl Popper’s Three Worlds,” John Watkins and Adam Grobler discuss Popper’s three-world theory in relation to evolutionary theory and the theory of rationality, respectively. Essays by Joseph Agassi and Stefan Amsterdamski are presented under the subtitle, “The Scientific Method as Ethics.” Agassi discusses the regrettable lack of honesty in the public relations of science. He sees this lack as a product of a widespread refusal to abandon idealized views of science, which allow one to abandon one’s autonomy. The significance of Popper’s approach is that it calls us to treat science more realistically and individuals to accept responsibility and autonomy: these cannot be delegated to science. The editor’s own contribution contends that knowledge is unavoidably conditioned by historical and sociological circumstances and that in his later philosophy Popper mistakenly sought to avoid this consequence. He somewhat misleadingly calls his view relativist in an attempt to distinguish it from Popper’s even while stressing his debt to him. The last two essays appear under the subtitle “The Open Society and Its Prospects.” Ernest Gellner discusses some of the illiberal traits in Popper’s personality which lead to defects in his, according to Gellner, extremely important defense of liberalism, and which can be improved by a more sociological perspective. (shrink)