Einstein Versus Bohr is unlike other books on science written by experts for non-experts, because it presents the history of science in terms of problems, conflicts, contradictions, and arguments. Science normally "keeps a tidy workshop." Professor Sachs breaks with convention by taking us into the theoretical workshop, giving us a problem-oriented account of modern physics, an account that concentrates on underlying concepts and debate. The book contains mathematical explanations, but it is so-designed that the whole argument can be followed with (...) the math omitted. Professor Sachs' story begins with classical and nineteenth century physics, describes the early discoveries in particle theory, and introduces the "old" quantum theory, which evolved into the quantum mechanics of the Copenhagen School. Such important ideas as the Einstein Photon Box experiment and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox, and Schrodinger's Cat Paradox are clearly expounded, followed by a completely fresh explanation of relativity in conceptual terms, showing how apparent paradoxes can be removed by Einstein's own interpretation, especially that of his later years. Professor Sachs gives a detailed comparison of the fundamentals of the quantum and relativity theories, suggesting how the contradictions might be resolved. In an epilogue, he makes suggestions, with reference to religious notions, Taoism, and Buber's theory of I-Thou, for generalizing Einstein's approach beyond physics. (shrink)

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 cardinality 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 be shown to be finitely (...) axiomatisable; this is done in the Appendix, which is the most important part of the paper. (shrink)

The Ramsey-sentence H* of any hypothesis H is shown to be a synthetic proposition containing mathematics as a finite component. Far from being quasi-tautological, H* proves to have as much physical content as H itself.

Proofs and Refutations is essential reading for all those interested in the methodology, the philosophy and the history of mathematics. Much of the book takes the form of a discussion between a teacher and his students. They propose various solutions to some mathematical problems and investigate the strengths and weaknesses of these solutions. Their discussion raises some philosophical problems and some problems about the nature of mathematical discovery or creativity. Imre Lakatos is concerned throughout to combat the classical picture of (...) mathematical development as a steady accumulation of established truths. He shows that mathematics grows instead through a richer, more dramatic process of the successive improvement of creative hypotheses by attempts to 'prove' them and by criticism of these attempts: the logic of proofs and refutations. (shrink)

In this paper I shall venture into an area with which I am not very familiar and in which I feel far from confident; namely into phenomenology. My main motive is not to get away from standard, boring, methodological questions like those of induction and demarcation; but the conviction that a phenomenological account of the empirical basis forms a necessary complement to Popper's falsificationism. According to the latter, a scientific theory is a synthetic and universal, hence unverifiable proposition. In fact, (...) in order to be technologically useful, a scientific hypothesis must refer to future states-of-affairs; it ought therefore to remain unverified. But in order to be empirical, a theory must bear some kind of relation to factual statements. According to Popper, such a relation can only be one of potential conflict. Thus a theory T will be termed scientific if and only if T is logically incompatible with a so-called basic statement b, where b is both empirically verifiable and empirically falsifiable. In other words: T is scientific if it entails ¬b; where b, hence also ¬b, is an empirically decidable proposition. (shrink)

Introduction générale à la philosophie des sciences du 20e siècle.

Human rights law has been called upon to help with the problem of persistently high greenhouse gas emissions. An obligation on states and other legal entities to lower their emissions (mitigation) is said to be deducible from that body of law. I refute this thesis. First, I consider two practical difficulties—causality and non-triviality—that face a plaintiff who, with emission mitigation as the objective, attempts to prove a human rights violation using the regular pattern of proof for a violation. Proponents of (...) the “human rights approach” to mitigation have held that proof of an emission “contribution” by the defendant together with proof of an “impact” by climate change on the plaintiff’s human rights are sufficient to discharge the evidentiary burden for the proof of causation. The rest of the causation chain is simply presumed. Thus, the original proof pattern for a human rights violation is abandoned. The proponents’ answer to the triviality difficulty has been to aggregate emitters into very large entities and sue _them_. However, aggregation can be shown to lead to a _reductio ad absurdum_. In my argument’s second part, I identify a more fundamental difficulty with the human rights approach to mitigation: The defendant’s emissions do not amount to a norm violation. Everyone contributes emissions without legislative or other prohibition. Treaty law on climate change itself recognizes emitting behaviour as lawful and permits the continuation of state emissions through to at least 2050. A rise in global warming from preindustrial levels to 1.5° Celsius with room for an even greater rise to close to 2° Celsius has been _budgeted for_ by the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The setting up of a budget affirms the normalized status of within-budget emissions. This universal license to emit denies the human rights approach to mitigation the very conditions of application of human rights law. (shrink)

Le volume coordonné par Fabienne Baghdassarian et Gweltaz Guyomarc’h, intitulé Réceptions de la théologie aristotélicienne. D’Aristote à Michel d’Éphèse, paru chez Peeters en 2017, dans la collection dirigée par Pierre Destrée, est le fruit d’un colloque organisé par les éditeurs à l’Université Jean Moulin (Lyon 3) en octobre 2014. Il réunit onze contributions, certaines présentées lors de ce colloque et d’autres inédites, consacrées aux tensions problématiques internes à la théologie d’Arist...

It has been maintained, by both philosophers and modern scientists, that the two domains of discourse of science and of philosophy are disjoint Though admitting that many physicists subscribed to metaphysical principles, it was claimed - by Duhem and Reichenbach among others - that the scientist's philosophical convictions play, or should play, no role in his scientific work. The present paper attempts to refute this separatist view by showing that Einstein's metaphysical realism - coupled with his Platonistic panmathematicism - played (...) a crucial role in his construction of the Relativity Programme and in his criticism of Quantum Mechanics. The article also shows that although Einstein was neither a strict Humean nor a strict Machian, his phenomenalist interpretation of the empirical basis proved to be an antidote against both conventionalist scepticism and Neurath's coherence theory of truth. /// Tanto filósofos como cientistas têm defendido a ideia de que os domínios discursivos da Ciência e da Filosofia seguem caminhos separados. Mesmo admitindo que muitos cientistas subscreveram princípios metafísicos, a ideia tem sido defendida - por Duhem e Reichenbach, entre outros - de que as convicções filosóficas do cientista não desempenham, ou deveriam não desempenhar, qualquer papel no seu trabalho científico. O objectivo do presente artigo é refutar esta visão separatista das coisas mostrando de que modo o realismo metafísico de Einstein - associado ao seu panmatematicismo platónico - desempenhou um papel crucial na sua construção do Programa da Relatividade e nas suas críticas à Mecânica Quântica. O artigo mostra igualmente que embora Einstein não fosse nem um Humeano estrito nem um estrito Macheano, a sua interpretação fenomenalista da base empírica demonstrou ser um antídoto quer contra o cepticismo convencionalista quer contra a teoria da coerência da verdade de Neurath. (shrink)

No philosopher has argued as forcefully and as convincingly for the fallibility of human knowledge as Hans Albert has done in his classic Traktat über kritische Vernunft. He exposed all those who, through a process of immunization, make some chosen aspects of their knowledge impervious to all criticism.

Nous présupposons le critère de démarcation de Popper d’après lequel un énoncé M est dit métaphysique s’il est empiriquement irréfutable. M sera qualifié de synthétique a priori si, de surcroît, il ne peut pas être expérimentalement vérifié. Nous démontrerons que le principe d’induction physique J* est synthétique a priori, J* étant défini — en gros — comme le principe suivant : toute théorie H qui est à la fois non-adhoc et empiriquement corroborée dans un domaine Δ courra, à l’avenir, moins (...) de risques d’être mise en défaut — dans Δ — qu’une hypothèse rivale infirmée par l’expérience. Bien qu’étant invérifiable tout autant qu’incritiquable, J* s’avère indispensable à la technologie ; ce que Popper avait d’ailleurs admis à plusieurs reprises. Nous critiquons ensuite le point de vue de David Miller selon lequel il n’est besoin d’aucune thèse métaphysique telle que J*, le critère de démarcation étant le seul principe requis par la science comme par la technologie. Dans ce même contexte, nous soutenons, contre Miller, que la science entretient un rapport positif, plutôt que purement critique ou négatif, avec la technologie. (shrink)

Nous présupposons le critère de démarcation de Popper d’après lequel un énoncé M est dit métaphysique s’il est empiriquement irréfutable. M sera qualifié de synthétique a priori si, de surcroît, il ne peut pas être expérimentalement vérifié. Nous démontrerons que le principe d’induction physique J* est synthétique a priori, J* étant défini — en gros — comme le principe suivant : toute théorie H qui est à la fois non-adhoc et empiriquement corroborée dans un domaine Δ courra, à l’avenir, moins (...) de risques d’être mise en défaut — dans Δ — qu’une hypothèse rivale infirmée par l’expérience. Bien qu’étant invérifiable tout autant qu’incritiquable, J* s’avère indispensable à la technologie ; ce que Popper avait d’ailleurs admis à plusieurs reprises. Nous critiquons ensuite le point de vue de David Miller selon lequel il n’est besoin d’aucune thèse métaphysique telle que J*, le critère de démarcation étant le seul principe requis par la science comme par la technologie. Dans ce même contexte, nous soutenons, contre Miller, que la science entretient un rapport positif, plutôt que purement critique ou négatif, avec la technologie. (shrink)

Es wird die Frage nach dem Ursprung des Konventionalismus aufgeworfen und ein Versuch ihrer Beantwortung unternommen. Die Entstehung des Konventionalismus wird auf das Versagen der philosophischen Grundlegung befremdender, aber auch empirisch erfolgreicher wissenschaftlicher Hypothesen zurückgeführt. Auch verdankt der moderne Positivismus seinen Aufschwung zum Teil der Unvereinbarkeit solcher Hypothesen mit herrschenden metaphysischen, bzw. religiösen, Weltanschauungen. Dies führt zum Versuch, die ontologischen Voraussetzungen wissenschaftlicher Theorien auszuklammern, ohne dadurch ihren empirischen Gehalt zu verringern. Im letzten Abschnitt wird dargetan, daß sowohl der moderne Positivismus (...) wie auch der Realismus in verschiedenen Aspekten der Kantschen Transzendentalphilosophie wurzeln. (shrink)

In this paper I try to explain why Lakatos’s (and Popper’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 (Research Programme) 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 (conservative) Correspondence Principle and various (revolutionary) symmetry requirements; both of these heuristic devices illustrate the fundamental role which, according to Lakatos, mathematics plays in the progress of empirical science. (shrink)