Structural Realism (SSR), as embodied in the Ramsey-sentence H of a theory H, is defended against the view that H reduces to a trivial statement about the cardinally of the domain of H, a view which arises from ignoring the central role of observation within science. Putnam's theses are examined and shown to support rather than undermine SSR. Finally: in view of its synthetic character, applied mathematics must enter into the formulation of H and hence to be shown axiomatisable; this (...) is done in the Appendix, which is the most important part of the paper. (shrink)

It has been maintained, by bothphilosophers and modern scjentists, that the twa domains of discourse of science and of philosophy are disjoint. Though admitting that many physicists subscribed to metaphysical principies, it was claimed - by Duhem and Reichenbach among others - that the scientist's philosophical convictions play, or shouldplay, no role in his scientiflc work. The presentpaper attempts lo refute this separatist view by showing that Einstein 's metaphysical realism - caupied with his Platonistic panmathematicism - played a crucial (...) role in his construction of the Relativity Programme and in his criticism of Quantum Mechanics (EPRparadox). The article also shows that although Einstein was neither a strict Humean nor a strict Machian, his phenomenalist interpretation of the empirical basis proved ta be an antidote against bath conventianalist scepticism and Neurath's coherence theory of (scientific) truth. (shrink)

In this paper I try to explain why Lakatos’s conventionalist view must be replaced by a phenomenological conception of the empirical basis; for only in this way can one make sense of the theses that the hard core of an RP can be shielded against refutations; that this metaphysical hard core can be turned into a set of guidelines or, alternatively, into a set of heuristic metaprinciples governing the development of an RP; and that a distinction can legitimately be made (...) between novel predictions and facts to which a theory might have been adjusted post hoc. Two basic metaprinciples are finally examined: the Correspondence Principle and various symmetry requirements; both of these heuristic devices illustrate the fundamental role which, according to Lakatos, mathematics plays in the progress of empirical science. (shrink)

Why did Copernicus's research programme supersede Ptolemy's?’, Lakatos and Zahar argued that, on Zahar's criterion for ‘novel fact’, Copernican theory was objectively scientifically superior to Ptolemaic theory. They are mistaken, Lakatos and Zahar applied Zahar's criterion to ‘a historical thought-experiment’—fictional rather than real history. Further, in their fictional history, they compared Copernicus to Eudoxus rather than Ptolemy, ignored Tycho Brahe, and did not consider facts that would be novel for geostatic theories. When Zahar's criterion is (...) applied to real history, the results are distinctly different. Finally, most of the historical and conceptual problems in applying Zahar's criterion to the Copernican Revolution primarily arise from a deep difficulty in Lakatos's programme: the necessity of individuating research programmes and identifying their originators. 1 Working closely with David Dahl was crucial in developing this paper. Robert Westman's valiant effort to keep me on the historical straight and narrow drastically limited my tendency to a priori historical pronouncements. The Vassar Philosophy Department, John Tompsich, and Jean Sterling were also helpful. (shrink)

O autor Darlei Dall’Agnol é formado em Filosofia pela Universidade de Caxias do sul e cursou mestrado em Filosofia na Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, com uma dissertação sobre ética e linguagem em Wittgestein; fez Doutorado em Filosofia na Universidade de Bristol, Inglaterra, defendendo tese sobre valor intrínseco na ética de Moore. Publicou vários livros na área de Ética e possui inúmeros artigos e capítulos de livros publicados no Brasil e no exterior. Algumas das obras desse autor são: (...) Ética e Linguagem: uma Introdução ao Tractatus de Wittgenstein, Valor Intrínseco – Metaética, ética normativa e ética prática em G. E. Moore, ambas com publicação em 2005. (shrink)

A presente obra divide-se em quatro seções, nas quais o autor irá discorrer acerca da bioética, discutindo sobre seu nascimento, seus princípios, aplicações dos princípios e sobre os problemas e perspectivas.

O autor do livro, Rossano Pecoraro, é formado em filosofia pela Universidade de Salerno na Itália e mestre e doutor em filosofia pela Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro. É autor de diversas publicações, atuando como pesquisador em áreas como pensamento contemporâneo, estética, filosofia e teatro, teoria política, comunicação e cultura.

A autoria da obra analisada pertence ao professor, ensaísta e filósofo francêsOllivierPourriol, cujas temáticas dos seus projetos circundam a relação entre filosofia e cinema. Antes desta obra, Pourriol já havia publicado “Cinefilô: as mais belas questões da filosofia no cinema” e “On-off comédie”.

A comprehensible model is proposed aimed at an analysis of the reasons for theory change in science. According to model the origins of scientific revolutions lie not in a clash of fundamental theories with facts, but of “old” research traditions with each other, leading to contradictions that can only be eliminated in a more general theory. The model is illustrated with reference to physics in the early 20th century, the three “old” traditions in this case being linked with Maxwellian electrodynamics, (...) Newtonian mechanics and phenomenological thermodynamics. Some modern examples are considered. Key words: Kuhn, Lakatos, Zahar. (shrink)

The monograph is aimed at an analysis of the reasons for theory change in science. The writer develops a model of theory change according to which the origins of scientific revolutions lie not in a clash of fundamental theories with facts, but of ‘old’ fundamental theories with each other.

This paper is a review of work on Newman's objection to epistemic structural realism (ESR). In Section 2, a brief statement of ESR is provided. In Section 3, Newman's objection and its recent variants are outlined. In Section 4, two responses that argue that the objection can be evaded by abandoning the Ramsey-sentence approach to ESR are considered. In Section 5, three responses that have been put forward specifically to rescue the Ramsey-sentence approach to ESR from the modern versions of (...) the objection are discussed. Finally, in Section 6, three responses are considered that are neutral with respect to one's approach to ESR and all argue (in different ways) that the objection can be evaded by introducing the notion that some relations/structures are privileged over others. It is concluded that none of these suggestions is an adequate response to Newman's objection, which therefore remains a serious problem for ESRists. Introduction Epistemic Structural Realism 2.1 Ramsey-sentences and ESR 2.2 WESR and SESR The Objection 3.1 Newman's version 3.2 Demopoulos and Friedman's and Ketland's versions Replies that Abandon the Ramsey-Sentence Approach to ESR 4.1 Redhead's reply 4.2 French and Ladyman's reply Replies Designed to Rescue the Ramsey-Sentence Approach 5.1 Zahar's reply 5.2 Cruse's reply 5.3 Melia and Saatsi's reply Replies that Argue that Some Structures/Relations are Privileged 6.1 A Carnapian reply 6.2 Votsis' reply 6.3 The Merrill/Lewis/Psillos reply Summary CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

Historians of relativity theory have puzzled over the fact that, while Einstein regarded Ernst Mach as his chief philosophical mentor, Mach himself publicly rejected relativity in the preface to Die Prinzipien der physikalischen Optik. This work was first published by Mach's son Ludwig in 1921, five years after Mach's death, but the preface is dated “July 1913”, when Einstein was working on general relativity and believing not only that he had Mach's “friendly interest” and support, but also that his project (...) was the working-out of some of Mach's suggestions. To Einstein, whose sympathy for Mach's overall philosophy of science had already begun to wane by 1921, the posthumous appearance of the preface seemed to underscore the inconsistency between Machian positivism and his own program to construct an abstract and geometrical physics; this interpretation appears in important modern analyses like Blackmore, Holton, and Zahar, and it has frequently served the purposes of the philosophical reaction against logical positivism in general. Now Gereon Wolters' book challenges the usual interpretation with a startling claim: that Ernst Mach never wrote the preface, which in fact is a forgery by his son Ludwig. The words “A Forgery and its Consequences” suggest the sweeping consequences that the preface has had for our understanding of the relation between Mach and Einstein; the point of the book is not only to document the dramatic story of the forgery, but also to defend an equally sweeping reconsideration, indeed a rehabilitation, of Mach's philosophy and its role in the history of relativity. (shrink)

The first principle of chemical composition is that elements are actually present in their compounds. It is a golden thread running through the history of compositional thinking in chemistry since before the chemical revolution. Opposed to this principle, which I call Actually Present Elements (APE), is the idea that elements are merely potentially present in their compounds: although not actually present, it is possible to recover them. In this paper I follow that golden thread, and then discuss the status of (...) APE itself: is it true? What arguments were there for it, and when? I argue that APE is a metaphysical principle, albeit at a lower level of generality and abstraction than the term ‘metaphysical’ usually suggests. I critically examine a range of different views on how metaphysical principles might be involved in research programmes in empirical science, and conclude by endorsing Elie Zahar’s view that metaphysical principles such as APE are to be found at the very heart of science. Moreover, they can be recipients of empirical support just like other parts of scientific theory. (shrink)

Lakatos, I. History of science and its rational reconstructions.--Clark, P. Atomism vs. thermodynamics.--Worrall, J. Thomas Young and the "rufutation" of Newtonian optics.--Musgrave, A. Why did oxygen supplant phlogiston?--Zahar, E. Why did Einstein's programme supersede Lorentz's?--Frické, M. The rejection of Avogadro's hypotheses.--Feyerabend, P. On the critique of scientific reason.

This paper considers criticisms of the author's Science and Scepticism advanced by Fred D' Agostino, Graham Oddie, Elie Zahar, Alan Musgrave, and John Worrall. The criticisms concern the following topics: the aim of science, unified theoryhood, the empirical basis, corroboration by already known evidence, the idea that scientific theories need be no more than possibly true, and the pragmatic problem of induction. Various clarifications and improvements result, and on the last topic the author significantly modifies his position.

In the present paper I want to do two things. First, I want to discuss Ramsey’s own views of Ramsey-sentences. This, it seems to me, is an important issue not just (or mainly) because of its historical interest. It has a deep philosophical significance. Addressing it will enable us to see what Ramsey’s lasting contribution in the philosophy of science was as well as what its relevance to today’s problems is. Since the 1950s, where the interest in Ramsey’s views has (...) mushroomed, there have been a number of different ways to read Ramsey’s views and to reconstruct Ramsey’s project. The second aim of the present paper is to discuss the most significant and controversial of this reconstruction, viz., structuralism. After some discussion of the problems of structuralism in the philosophy of science, as this was exemplified in Bertrand Russell’s and Grover Maxwell’s views and has re-appeared in Elie Zahar’s and John Worrall’s thought, I will argue that, for good reasons, Ramsey did not see his Ramsey-sentences as part of some sort of structuralist programme. I will close with an image of scientific theories that Ramsey might have found congenial. I will call it Ramseyan humility. (shrink)

This book presents an elaborate analysis of the widely discussed problem of reconstruction of scientific theory change, based on material from theoretical physics. It gives a detailed , although not complete, analysis of the ideas of such authors as T. Kuhn, I. Lakatos, P. Feyerabend, E. Zahar and G. Holton, the empiristic account of the notion of “crucial experiment”, as well as of some leading Russian philosophers of science such as V. Stepin, E. Mamchur and V. Branskii. On the (...) positive side, the book offers an original model of reconstruction of scientific theory change. As the author himself insists on several occasions, his model does not pretend to completeness. Nugayev’ s model of scientific theory change is extensively tested on the example of the Lorentz-Einstein transition. The result is an empirical justification of his model, which shows not only that it works quite well in this particular reconstruction, but also that it explains some historical facts that have been left aside by some other authors. (shrink)

In 1975, Imre Lakatos and Elie Zahar claimed that the determination of planetary distances represents excess empirical content of Copernicus's theory over that of Ptolemy. This claim provoked an interesting discussion during the first half of the 1980s. The discussion started when Alan Chalmers affirmed that it is not correct to attribute this advantage to the Copernican system over the Ptolemaic. Other scholars criticized Chalmers's assertion, reaffirming the position of Lakatos and Zahar: one went even further, asserting that (...) Copernicus has not one but two methods for calculating distances, even though this claim was subsequently also criticized. But all participants assumed that Ptolemy has no method for calculating planetary distances. In this article, I argue that this is not correct. I argue, in fact, that Ptolemy has two independent methods for calculating the distances of some of the planets and, therefore, as far as the calculation of planetary distances is concerned, Ptolemy's system surpasses that of Copernicus. (shrink)

The major argument against Ramsey-style epistemic structural realism is the model-theoretic refinement of Newman’s objection against Russell, presented in Ketland : 409–424, 2004), where a technical result is interpreted as showing that the Ramsey-sentence approach collapses into instrumentalism. This paper addresses some questions raised by the application of model theory to the scientific realism debate. Firstly, I will suggest three different formal semantics for the positions in the debate. Then, some technicalities of Ketland’s result will be scrutinized in light of (...) comments by Zahar and Demopoulos. Finally, I will formalize Ketland’s argument by means of an intensional operator and focus on one problematic premise. The conclusion is that, with some adjustments, the Ramsey-sentence approach can represent an intermediate position between realism and instrumentalism, but the term “structuralism” does not suit it well. (shrink)

Introduction to the French translation of a paper on structural realism by Elie Zahar.

Resenha do livro de: Rodrigo Duarte, Adorno/Horkheimer & A dialetica do esclarecimento. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar, 2002. Colecao Filosofia Passa-a-passo 4. 70 paginas.

In the present paper I want to do two things. First, I want to discuss Ramsey’s own views of Ramsey-sentences. This, it seems to me, is an important issue not just because of its historical interest. It has a deep philosophical significance. Addressing it will enable us to see what Ramsey’s lasting contribution in the philosophy of science was as well as what its relevance to today’s problems is. Since the 1950s, where the interest in Ramsey’s views has mushroomed, there (...) have been a number of different ways to read Ramsey’s views and to reconstruct Ramsey’s project. The second aim of the present paper is to discuss the most significant and controversial of this reconstruction, viz., structuralism. After some discussion of the problems of structuralism in the philosophy of science, as this was exemplified in Bertrand Russell’s and Grover Maxwell’s views and has re-appeared in Elie Zahar’s and John Worrall’s thought, I will argue that, for good reasons, Ramsey did not see his Ramsey-sentences as part of some sort of structuralist programme. I will close with an image of scientific theories that Ramsey might have found congenial. I will call it Ramseyan humility. (shrink)

This paper briefly recounts the importance of the notion of natural axiomatizations for explicating hypothetico‐deductivism, empirical significance, theoretical reduction, and organic fertility. Problems for the account of natural axiomatizations developed by John Watkins in Science and Scepticism and the revised account developed by Elie Zahar are demonstrated. It is then shown that Watkins's account can be salvaged from various counter‐examples in a principled way by adding the demand that every axiom of a natural axiomatization should be part of the (...) content of the theory being axiomatized. The crucial point here is that content cannot simply be identified with the set of logical consequences of a theory, but must be restricted to a proper subset of the consequence set. It is concluded that the revised Watkins account has certain advantages over the account of natural axiomatizations offered in Gemes. (shrink)

This paper briefly recounts the importance of the notion of natural axiomatizations for explicating hypothetico‐deductivism, empirical significance, theoretical reduction, and organic fertility. Problems for the account of natural axiomatizations developed by John Watkins in Science and Scepticism and the revised account developed by Elie Zahar are demonstrated. It is then shown that Watkins's account can be salvaged from various counter‐examples in a principled way by adding the demand that every axiom of a natural axiomatization should be part of the (...) content of the theory being axiomatized. The crucial point here is that content cannot simply be identified with the set of logical consequences of a theory, but must be restricted to a proper subset of the consequence set. It is concluded that the revised Watkins account has certain advantages over the account of natural axiomatizations offered in Gemes. (shrink)

The relevance of the Popperian heritage to the internalism-externalism issue is explored. First, the nature of the controversy between Popper and his disciples, Watkins and Zahar, about basic statements is discussed. Popper's resistance to Watkins' and Zahar's elaborations is suggested to be motivated by his implicit antiinternalist attitude that is misnamed by him as antipsychologism. Next, instead of a conventionalist, an externalist reading of Popper's mention about the role of a „scientific jury” in accepting basic statements is offered. (...) It is doubtful, however, whether Popper can be considered an externalist, for he rejects the concept of justified belief altogether. Still, it is suggested that future elaboration of his ideas may help to explain away the circularity apparent in Goldman's reliabilism and arrive at a more tenable form of externalism. (shrink)

Im Rahmen der Popperianischen Bewährungstheorie spielt der Begriff der Strenge eines Tests eine wichtige Rolle. Einige konkurrierende Vorschläge zur Bestimmung der Teststrenge werden vorgestellt, auf ihre Konsequenzen hin analysiert und miteinander verglichen. Gegen Vorschläge von Popper und Watkins bzw. Lakatos und Musgrave werden schwerwiegende Einwände vorgebracht; durch die Erweiterung einer Idee von Zahar lassen sich deren vertretbare Konsequenzen aber erhalten und sogar erklären. Es wird die Ansicht vertreten, daß es im Zusammenhang mit einer rationalen Theorienpräferenz mehr auf ein Optimum (...) an empirischer Kritik als auf ein Maximum ankommt: ein Test muß zwar streng, aber auch fair sein. (shrink)

THE VOLUME CONTAINS PAPERS BY J L MACKIE, JON DORLING, ELIE ZAHAR, LAWRENCE SKLAR, RICHARD Swinburne, Richard A HEALEY, W H NEWTON-SMITH, NANCY CARTWRIGHT, JEREMY BUTTERFIELD, MICHAEL REDHEAD AND PETER GIBBONS. THEY CONCERN THE IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR UNDERSTANDING OF SPACE, TIME AND CAUSATION OF THE DEVELOPMENTS OF MODERN PHYSICS AND ESPECIALLY OF RELATIVITY THEORY AND QUANTUM THEORY.

O texto consiste em uma resenha da obra Retrotopia, de Zygmunt Bauman, publicada pela Editora Zahar em 2017. A obra percorre os labirintos da história da utopia e chega a retrotopia, cujo surgimento se dá devido ao divórcio, cada vez mais acentuado, entre poder e política, e o desencanto com ideias, ideais e promessas de futuro. [...]. O autor Zygmunt Bauman, sociólogo e filósofo polonês, tornou-se um dos mais importantes analistas de temas hodiernos, dedicando sua vida ao estudo da (...) condição humana. Sua formação e trajetória docente na Universidade de Varsóvia e na Universidade de Leeds, bem como sua vasta produção acadêmica, colocam-no na vanguarda dos intelectuais contemporâneos e caracterizam-no como um dos grandes pensadores da contemporaneidade. Se para alguns ele é o conhecedor perspicaz, para outros é um ingênuo pessimista. Contudo, sua produção acadêmica possui ampla aceitação no campo das ciências sociais, nas ciências da educação, sobretudo nos estudos norteados pela perspectiva pós-estruturalista. A partir de um diálogo com a “Utopia” de Thomas More, o autor tece seus argumentos na interlocução com diversos pensadores e com as diferentes situações cotidianas noticiadas nos principais jornais do mundo. Ele sistematiza conceitos, pressupostos, posicionamentos e críticas em uma obra densa, disposta em seis seções: a introdução, denominada de “A era da nostalgia”; o primeiro capítulo “De volta a Hobbes?”; seguido por “De volta às tribos”; “De volta à desigualdade”; “De volta ao útero”; e um epílogo, intitulado “olhando adiante, para variar”. Essas seções constituem uma espécie de inventário, que articula sentimentos e práticas retrotopianos, materializados no Lebenswelt dos sujeitos imersos na moderna sociedade líquida. [...]. Essa epidemia global de nostalgia de que fala o autor, em vez de consolidar o futuro como ethos de esperanças e expectativas, torna-o um invólucro de medo e pesadelos. É desse cenário complexo que emerge a retrotopia como um “novo” ciclo da história da utopia, substituindo o vigor do tempo incerto que está por vir, por tentativas conscientes de iteração com aspectos bem-sucedidos do passado, projetando-os como futuro, na fantasia de harmonizar segurança com liberdade. Embora não se trate de “retorno direto a um modo de vida antes praticado”, a suposta estabilidade, o pseudorresguardo no que passou, e a ilusória faculdade de controlar o que pode acontecer, causam um distanciamento entre poder e política, destituindo a soberania do Estado e das agências capazes de regular/prover a vida social. Ao denotar que os sujeitos contemporâneos duvidam da capacidade do Estado, e de qualquer instituição, de levar as coisas a cabo e de escolher entre aquelas que devem ser feitas, o autor revela o desmonte do coletivo como uma instância política de poder e a redução da vida social à capacidade de consumir, exacerbando o âmbito pessoal como responsável pela busca das melhorias de vida. [...]. (shrink)

This is a book of wide-ranging scope, as the title suggests. First, it canvasses a broad selection of topics—from electromagnetism and quantum mechanics to Husserl’s phenomological constitution of logic, from Russell and Wittgenstein to Hartry Field. Second, its aims are broad. The author describes the book both as a “rational reconstruction of Poincaré’s position” and as a “treatise on modern epistemology”. The former description is somewhat misleading in that, together with Zahar’s stated aim of both “clarifying and of then (...) reconciling Poincaré’s various theses about the foundations of mathematics and the natural sciences”, it might give the reader hope that all of these theses might be shown to be part of one unified position. In fact, though, Poincaré’s philosophy of physics and his philosophy of mathematics turn out to be fundamentally different. Zahar attributes to Poincaré a “structural realist” view of physics and a “quasi-Kantian” constructivist view of mathematics. It’s not entirely clear, though, why the considerations adduced in favor of structural realism in physics can’t be carried over to the case of mathematics. More might have been said to explain this divergence, perhaps for example by developing the contrast in the introduction between the empirical testability of scientific hypotheses and the intuitive self-evidence of mathematical theorems. (shrink)