The aim of the article is presentation of some opinions of historians and philosophers of science about scientific doctrines of Charles Lyell (1797-1875) and the sources of these doctrines. Three main themes are discussed: 1. What was the real meaning of Lyell's uniformitarianism and which doctrine (catastrophism or directionalism) it was opposed to? 2. Which method of geological research was used and recommended by Lyell? 3. What relation connected Lyell's scientific doctrine with his religious and theological views?

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)

The article is a commentary to Susan Haack’s The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth. It consists of two parts. In the first one some doubts about Haack’s conception of partiality of truth are formulated. However, Haack’s concept of truth is treated as one of the assumptions and not brought up for discussion. In the second part of the article a simple typology of possible sources of truth’s partiality in science is presented. The list includes deliberate and unintentional omissions, (...) misleading, lack of scientific interest, unattainability, and epistemological problems with truth and realism. (shrink)