Protoscience and Reconstruction. A central concept of the constructivist philosophy of science is the term 'protoscience'. From an orthodox point of view, protosciences are bound to give the so called 'measurement-theoretical Apriori' ('meßtheoretisches Apriori') for a science. Protophysics for example (operationally) defines the quantities 'length', 'time', and 'mass'. Thereby it yields some basic physical laws, which usually are regarded as "laws of nature", but in fact follow already from the definitions of the basic quantities. The attempt to establish other protodisciplines (...) than protophysics is traditionally regarded as not very promising, because other sciences do not like physics build their main theories on certain basic quantities. Nevertheless such enterprises like "protochemistry", "protobiology" and "protopsychology" recently appeared on the scene. Does this mark a breakthrough in constructivist philosophy of science or is this multiplication of protosciences no more than a promotion strategy? In the article it is shown that the orthodox definition of 'protoscience' is in fact far to narrow. An alternative definition is proposed which on one hand preserves the classic tasks of protophysics but on the other hand allows for other protosciences as equally useful enterprises. A central concept within the complex topic "protoscience" is the one of 'reconstruction'. It can be shown that there is a certain ambiguity in the use of this critical concept. Therefore the article ends with a reconstruction of the term 'reconstruction'. (shrink)

Protoscience and Reconstruction. A central concept of the constructivist philosophy of science is the term 'protoscience'. From an orthodox point of view, protosciences are bound to give the so called 'measurement-theoretical Apriori' for a science. Protophysics for example defines the quantities 'length', 'time', and 'mass'. Thereby it yields some basic physical laws, which usually are regarded as "laws of nature", but in fact follow already from the definitions of the basic quantities. The attempt to establish other protodisciplines than protophysics is (...) traditionally regarded as not very promising, because other sciences do not like physics build their main theories on certain basic quantities. Nevertheless such enterprises like "protochemistry", "protobiology" and "protopsychology" recently appeared on the scene. Does this mark a breakthrough in constructivist philosophy of science or is this multiplication of protosciences no more than a promotion strategy? In the article it is shown that the orthodox definition of 'protoscience' is in fact far to narrow. An alternative definition is proposed which on one hand preserves the classic tasks of protophysics but on the other hand allows for other protosciences as equally useful enterprises. A central concept within the complex topic "protoscience" is the one of 'reconstruction'. It can be shown that there is a certain ambiguity in the use of this critical concept. Therefore the article ends with a reconstruction of the term 'reconstruction'. (shrink)

On the productive-operative approach to the foundations of geometry in protophysics. Attempts to establish a foundation to elementary geometry as a theory of spatial figures in Protophysics are surveyed in Section 1. An idea suggested by H. Dingler was to extract the basic properties of the geometrical primitive notions from descriptions of the operations performed in the ‘first’ production of the corresponding objects. P. Janich presents this ‘productive-operative’ approach as a succesful methodical alternative to the ‘geometry of forms’ of R. (...) Inhetveen and P. Lorenzen (Section 2). However, in his work not even one fundamental task seems to be achieved in a satisfactory manner. The article evaluates Janich’s contributions (Section 3) and discusses the shortcomings of his approach (Section 4). In this process a ‘functional-operative’ alternative emerges (Section 5). (shrink)