Rozważane są dwie kwestie podstawowe dla oceny strukturalistycznej koncepcji nauk empirycznych: 1) czy możliwa jest i realizowalna logicyzacja filozofii nauki, w szczególności, czy możliwa jest redukcja strukturalistycznej koncepcji teorii empirycznej do logiki, oraz 2) jaki aktualny charakter i perspektywy ma strukturalistyczna niezdaniowa koncepcja wiedzy? Rozważania oparte są na wynikach pracy: Modele semantyczne w filozofii nauk empirycznych po pół wieku. Część I. Filozoficzne wątpliwości.

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)

Is Gilles Deleuze’s concept of virtuality sufficiently close to the concept of virtuality used in informatics and the philosophy of information for computer-created objects and virtual reality to justify the latter’s explanation by means of the former? This question is the main objective of the present paper. We aim to show that, contrary to its most widespread interpretations, the Deleuzian conception of virtuality is epistemological and not ontological, and that this invalidates the belief that Deleuze’s virtuality and that of computer (...) science are sufficiently close to justify the transposition of one to the other. (shrink)

It is shown that the program of naturalizing of epistemology, that is, the program of the whole substitution of epistemology for sciences or for the humanities is not realizable. Naturalized epistemology includes metaphysical (in Kant’s sense: synthetic, speculative, a priori) claims which save its partly autonomous philosophical status. The result presented in the paper does not exclude the naturalizing program. It leads, instead, to a modified, attenuated version of it—such one which permits to open epistemology by transferring it in multi-facet (...) vivid philosophical investigations juxtaposed with science and the humanities. The postulated attenuated version of naturalizing does not result in destroying epistemology as a special philosophical domain of investigations, not substitutable for sciences. (shrink)

The paper analyses today partly forgotten Max Horkheimer’s conception of instrumental reason which presents this reason differently from the definition widespread today (claiming that it consists in adopting suitable means to set ends). Horkheimer relates instrumental reason to subjective one, seeing the former as a degenerate form of the latter. His theory is far more philosophical than the dominating today conceptions which do not consider the problem of instrumental reason philosophical any longer and instead move it step by step to (...) the domain of a nonphilosophical decision theory. The paper analyses in particular Horkheimer’s beliefs claiming that 1) it is science which founds instrumental reason, and therefore 2) it is science which is the main source of oppressiveness and degradation of the contemporary civilization. It is shown among other things that Horkheimer misunderstands some properties of science and its operations and this leads to his incorrect presentation of the role of instrumental reason. (shrink)

The present essay outlines the metaphilosophical foundations necessary for an analysis of science’s dependence on culture. It shows that the matter cannot be approached on a purely objective level as all studies and conclusions are perforce relativized by adopted cultural and scientific norms. The multifariousness of science and culture—which lies at the root of the whole problem—results in a broad network of relations between the two.The enclosed studies on the loading of science by culture lead to rather integristic conclusions as (...) to the essence of culture. This integristic position is in a sense a “third road” halfway between the two known radical approaches—one proclaiming that culture is totally diversified, the other that it is one. The “third path” underscores the universal fundament of culture in all its varieties and views science as universal despite its cultural load and the diversity of existing cultures—precisely because of its rooting in this fundament. (shrink)

Nicholas Maxwell’s project, among others the character of its philosophical foundations, the notion of wisdom, and its radical post-Enlightenment scientism are discussed, and some doubts regard to it are presented. Above all, it is argued that Maxwell’s proposal of the establishing of world confederations of scientists standing above governments might lead to a totalitarian system.

I propose here an image of knowledge based on the concept of symbol: according to it, the relation of representation that constituting cognition is a symbolization. It is postulated that both the representing conceptual model, i.e. a pre-linguistic entity acquired in cognition, and the true sentence it generates are of symbolic and not of mirroring character. The symbolic nature of cognition carries dialectical tension. We have at our disposal conceptual models and true sentences which symbolically represent reality. However, it is (...) not possible to lift the symbolic disguise over knowledge, because precisely this disguise is its essence. Reality appears only as symbolically, nonimitatively encoded. The proposed here symbolic realism rejects the traditional adopted dichotomy between, on one side, realism and the absence of the subject’s factors in the cognitive result, and, on the other, idealism and the subject as a factor which is viewed as inevitably leading to the idealistic nature of knowledge. (shrink)

It is shown that the program of naturalizing of epistemology, that is, the program of the whole substitution of epistemology for sciences or for the humanities is not realizable. Naturalized epistemology includes metaphysical (in Kant’s sense: synthetic, speculative, a priori) claims which save its partly autonomous philosophical status. The result presented in the paper does not exclude the naturalizing program. It leads, instead, to a modified, attenuated version of it—such one which permits to open epistemology by transferring it in multi-facet (...) vivid philosophical investigations juxtaposed with science and the humanities. The postulated attenuated version of naturalizing does not result in destroying epistemology as a special philosophical domain of investigations, not substitutable for sciences. (shrink)

It is shown that the program of naturalizing of epistemology, that is, the program of the whole substitution of epistemology for sciences or for the humanities is not realizable. Naturalized epistemology includes metaphysical (in Kant’s sense: synthetic, speculative, a priori) claims which save its partly autonomous philosophical status. The result presented in the paper does not exclude the naturalizing program. It leads, instead, to a modified, attenuated version of it—such one which permits to open epistemology by transferring it in multi-facet (...) vivid philosophical investigations juxtaposed with science and the humanities. The postulated attenuated version of naturalizing does not result in destroying epistemology as a special philosophical domain of investigations, not substitutable for sciences. (shrink)

In this essay I wish to add my voice to Michael H. Mitias’s polemic with Robert E. Allinson’s view that an Enlightenment-driven reform of the human world is desirable, and even necessary. Allinson calls the outcome of such a reform the “New Enlightenment.” I also consider the few main threads of Mitias’s alternative proposal for repairing the human world, which involves the reinterpretation of the Enlightenment ideology, and I strive to show that, contrary to Mitias’s belief, both his and Allinson’s (...) positions have important common points. Moreover, I also take a closer look at Mitias’s project, especially his postulate to begin funding the reforming of the human world in human nature. (shrink)

I investigate the universality of science as perceived in epistemological conceptions and in sociology of science, as well as claims about the anti-universal character of science. In this, I distinguish two kinds of universality of science: epistemic and global cultural/social, and in the latter also the global universality of the basic level of science. I attempt to show that epistemology views science as universal in its basic aspects relating to knowledge, its object, subject and cognitive values as well as methods, (...) which, according to the epistemological meta-theses, are necessary for scientific validity and autonomy. I also draw attention to the fact that sociologised, multiculturally-oriented approaches to science are wrong to hold it for irrevocably anti-universal and exclusively a part of Western culture. I suggest instead the perspective of basic-level global universalism, where science is seen to grow out of a cultural base common to all cultures, which provides the criteria for weak rationality, weak empiricism and methodology and determines the nomological character of cognition. Finally, I trace the evolution of universality from a property of science to a value, and ask about the meaning of this property-cum-value for the human world. (shrink)

My reflections focus on the ideal of science and the contemporary condition of science. I believe the distinction between the ideal of science and praxis of science is essential in inquiries into what science is today, what its position is and should be in the human world. I analyse the critical stance towards science that is so widespread in contemporary philosophy. It is demonstrated that today’s ever-widening chasm between the ideal of science (its nature, established anthropically already in ancient times) (...) and its contemporary praxis is the main problem hampering the science of our day and a problem for the entire human world, present and future. In the paper it is proved inter alia that main philosophical arguments against science (first of all, arguments about the instrumentalisation of the reason by science and the oppressive role of science in today’s world) arouse serious doubts. (shrink)

I present—in an extremely sketchy form—a model of two-level, open, plastic and multidimensional human nature. Due to the included attribute of multidimensionality this model opposes the reductive conceptions of man dominating in today’s philosophy. The main objective of the paper is the ontological status of man, especially the ontic foundation of multidimensional man. I demonstrate that this status remains a riddle; one only knows that from the ontological perspective man is a wholly exceptional object, not explainable by to-date ontological constructions. (...) -/- . (shrink)

The paper explores the issue; “can our wisdom save the Human Project?” another words “can we live wiser and longer” or “should we feel better and live shorter?” To save the Human Project, which can fall due to overdeveloped civilization, perhaps we should pursue logos-driven wisdom, because the threat is too dangerous to leave room for uncertainty. The review of how philosophy, responsible for “wisdom”, has been developed shows that the empiric study of wisdom is the task of the last (...) 20 years only, since it has only been in the last centuries that philosophers grasped the issue of reason. This paper presents a framework for the necessity of developing eco-philosophy, which includes cognition, survival and action philosophies. These kinds of philosophies can be perceived through the tool of Wisdom Diamond. The author is not very optimistic whether our wisdom can save the Human Project, which was designed to last only a limited few billion (US measure) years. On the other hand, perhaps some mythos can help in this Project, otherwise would life be too boring, not worthy of being longer? (shrink)