In the increasing body of metatheoretical literature on "causal mechanisms," definitions of "mechanism" proliferate, and these increasingly divergent definitions reproduce older theoretical and methodological oppositions. The reason for this proliferation is the incompatibility of the various metatheoretical expectations directed to them: (1) to serve as an alternative to the scientific theory of individual behavior (for some social theorists, most notably Jon Elster); (2) to provide solutions for causal inference problems in the quantitative social sciences, in social history, and in the (...) (3) qualitative research context; and (4) to serve as an alternative for narratives (Charles Tilly). Mechanisms can do (1) only as under-specified law-like regularities, deliver (2) as robust generative processes represented by models, and accomplish (3) as fragile generative processes (stories), but these are not all compatible. (edited). (shrink)

We test the hypothesis that demographic continuity was a necessary condition of performable token post-communist social restorations. Demographic continuity means sufficient overlapping between populations of original and restored systems. Token social restoration refers to restorations where original and restored systems are identical. It is opposed to type restoration where original and restored systems are numerically different instances of the same type. The identity of original and restored systems in token restorations is achieved by performing various practices in the restored system (...) to establish institutional continuity with the original system. The restitution of property rights is the most important of them in the post-communist restorations. So our hypothesis claims that these practices cannot be performed without sufficient demographic continuity. We abstract the demographic continuity thresholds by measuring shares of survivors from the precommunist times in the population of Baltic countries by 1990. Our data confirm the hypothesis as in none of post-communist countries with demographic continuity below these thresholds there was property rights restitution. (shrink)

This selection of texts should interest those who study analytical philosophy of history, methodology of history, and historical sociology. It contains contributions by Polish historians and philosophers since 1931, with pride of place given to the work of the Poznań school in the philosophy of science and humanities. With Jerzy Kmita, Leszek Nowak, and Jerzy Topolski as its leaders, it emerged in late 1960s as a synthesis of Marxism and the Polish brand of logical positivism known as the Lwow-Warsaw school. (...) Most papers discuss or exemplify various forms of idealization in historical research. Although the papers demonstrate the usefulness of modeling in historical sociology and nonnarrative history, the collection as a whole does not provide realistic examples to substantiate the Poznań school's stronger claim of the decomposability of historical narratives into separate strips related to hierarchically ordered “essential factors.”. (shrink)

This book is a collection of papers published in English by the best internationally known Polish writer in metahistory during the last three decades of the past century. Expanded by translation of selected fragments from Polish, it provides international readers for the first time a synoptic picture of Jerzy Topolski’s contributions to theoretical self-reflection of historical studies. During his lifetime, Topolski presented himself and was perceived as an exponent of the “idealizational theory of science” (ITS) of the Poznań school of (...) methodology, applying this theory to historical studies. After locating his work in this context, the broader view of Topolski’s contribution is advanced, locating it in the tradition of attempts of internal self-explication of historical studies, going back to Droysen (Historik) and Lelewel (historyka), and opposing themselves to philosophical metatheories of history. Ironically, Topolski’s methodological work gained international recognition because it was perceived as a philosophical contribution. However, in Poland itself, Topolski’s work was uniquely successful among historians and it has been a nearly obligatory part in the academic socialization of new generations of Polish historians since the 1970s. (shrink)

This paper discusses the prospect of the "new social history" guided by the recent work of Charles Tilly on the methodology of social and historical explanation. Tilly advocates explanation by mechanisms as the alternative to the covering law explanation. Tilly's proposals are considered to be the attempt to reshape the practices of social and historical explanation following the example set by the explanatory practices of molecular biology, neurobiology, and other recent "success stories" in the life sciences. Recent work in the (...) philosophy of science on these practices by Peter Machamer, Lindley Darden, Carl Craver and others is used as the foil to disclose the difficulties of Tilly's project. Most important among them is the dilemma of specification: if diagrams (standard forms of the representation of mechanisms) are intended as representations of robust causal processes, they cannot be specific enough to provide complete mechanism schemata, and are bound to remain mechanism sketches. If mechanism sketches are elaborated in detail by tracing particular causal processes, they provide representations of fragile causal processes, which cannot be considered as mechanisms comparable to those in advanced life and other special sciences. Tilly's work on the explanation of mechanisms can be considered as symptomatic for the recent trend to visualize the forms of historical representation. As far as diagrams seem to be able to communicate stories in a direct way (without narrative discourse), this trend is a challenge for the theory of historical representation. The new theories of scientific explanation focusing on the explanatory practices of the life sciences can provide examples and be the source of inspiration for the work on the theory of historical and social explanation, going beyond the confines of the received framework of the covering law model of explanation. (shrink)

Przedmiotem artykułu jest paradoks Zenona z Elei Korzec prosa. Wszystkie zachowane argumenty Zenona znane są z przekazów filozofów późniejszych. Korzec prosa jest zdawkowo przedstawiony przez Arystotelesa w Fizyce oraz znajduje się w Komentarzu do „Fizyki” Arystotelesa autorstwa Simplikiosa. Obydwa fragmenty, które stanowią przedmiot rozważań, zawierają częściowo odmienną terminologię oraz występują w nich rozumowania, oparte na innych schematach wnioskowania. Celem analiz zawartych w tekście jest uzasadnienie, że fragment z Fizyki Arystotelesa może sytuować omawiany paradoks jako argument przeciw ruchowi, a nie jako (...) argument przeciw wielości, jak przedstawia się go zazwyczaj w świetle przekazu Simplikiosa. W artykule zostały przedstawione obydwa fragmenty w języku greckim wraz z autorskimi tłumaczeniami oraz szczegółową analizą ich treści. -------------- Zgłoszono: 28/09/2020. Zrecenzowano: 30/10/2020. Zaakceptowano do publikacji: 18/11/2020. (shrink)

In the article three Zeno's paradoxes are reconstructed. They are: „Achilles and the turtle”, „Arrow” and „Stadium”. Together with the paradox of „Dichotomy” (which was analysed by the author elsewhere) they form the question about the nature of continuum. In the paper the following hypothesis is accepted: „Dichotomy” is principally connected with the mathematical theory of continuum, whereas other paradoxes concern the application of this theory to the description of physical motion.

knj. 5. Od Zenona do Bergsona : studije i članci iz istorija filozofije -- knj. 9. Prirodnjački spisi -- knj. 10. Naučni spisi -- knj. 11. Rezime filozofskih i naučnih radova -- knj. 12. Autobiografija, pesme, prepiska.

The book "Idealization XIV: Models in Science" offers a detailed ontological, epistemological and historical account of the role of models in scientific practice. The volume contains contributions of different international scholars who developed many aspects of the use of idealizations and models both in the natural and the social sciences. This volume is particularly relevant because it offers original contributions concerning one of the main topic in philosophy of science: the role of models in such branches of the sciences and (...) the humanities like comparative historical sociology, economics, history, linguistics and political philosophy. -/- Contributors are: Giacomo Borbone, Krzysztof Brzechczyn, Mieszko Ciesielski, Adam Czerniak, Xavier de Donato Rodríguez, José L. Falguera, Adolfo García de la Sienra, Lidia Godek, Igor Hanzel, Łukasz Hardt, Krzysztof Kiedrowski, Barbara Konat, Zenonas Norkus, Piotr Przybysz, Piotr Szwochert. (shrink)

This eighth volume of Collected Papers includes 75 papers comprising 973 pages on (theoretic and applied) neutrosophics, written between 2010-2022 by the author alone or in collaboration with the following 102 co-authors (alphabetically ordered) from 24 countries: Mohamed Abdel-Basset, Abduallah Gamal, Firoz Ahmad, Ahmad Yusuf Adhami, Ahmed B. Al-Nafee, Ali Hassan, Mumtaz Ali, Akbar Rezaei, Assia Bakali, Ayoub Bahnasse, Azeddine Elhassouny, Durga Banerjee, Romualdas Bausys, Mircea Boșcoianu, Traian Alexandru Buda, Bui Cong Cuong, Emilia Calefariu, Ahmet Çevik, Chang Su Kim, Victor (...) Christianto, Dae Wan Kim, Daud Ahmad, Arindam Dey, Partha Pratim Dey, Mamouni Dhar, H. A. Elagamy, Ahmed K. Essa, Sudipta Gayen, Bibhas C. Giri, Daniela Gîfu, Noel Batista Hernández, Hojjatollah Farahani, Huda E. Khalid, Irfan Deli, Saeid Jafari, Tèmítópé Gbóláhàn Jaíyéolá, Sripati Jha, Sudan Jha, Ilanthenral Kandasamy, W.B. Vasantha Kandasamy, Darjan Karabašević, M. Karthika, Kawther F. Alhasan, Giruta Kazakeviciute-Januskeviciene, Qaisar Khan, Kishore Kumar P K, Prem Kumar Singh, Ranjan Kumar, Maikel Leyva-Vázquez, Mahmoud Ismail, Tahir Mahmood, Hafsa Masood Malik, Mohammad Abobala, Mai Mohamed, Gunasekaran Manogaran, Seema Mehra, Kalyan Mondal, Mohamed Talea, Mullai Murugappan, Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Aslam Malik, Muhammad Khalid Mahmood, Nivetha Martin, Durga Nagarajan, Nguyen Van Dinh, Nguyen Xuan Thao, Lewis Nkenyereya, Jagan M. Obbineni, M. Parimala, S. K. Patro, Peide Liu, Pham Hong Phong, Surapati Pramanik, Gyanendra Prasad Joshi, Quek Shio Gai, R. Radha, A.A. Salama, S. Satham Hussain, Mehmet Șahin, Said Broumi, Ganeshsree Selvachandran, Selvaraj Ganesan, Shahbaz Ali, Shouzhen Zeng, Manjeet Singh, A. Stanis Arul Mary, Dragiša Stanujkić, Yusuf Șubaș, Rui-Pu Tan, Mirela Teodorescu, Selçuk Topal, Zenonas Turskis, Vakkas Uluçay, Norberto Valcárcel Izquierdo, V. Venkateswara Rao, Volkan Duran, Ying Li, Young Bae Jun, Wadei F. Al-Omeri, Jian-qiang Wang, Lihshing Leigh Wang, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas. (shrink)

This eleventh volume of Collected Papers includes 90 papers comprising 988 pages on Physics, Artificial Intelligence, Health Issues, Decision Making, Economics, Statistics, written between 2001-2022 by the author alone or in collaboration with the following 84 co-authors (alphabetically ordered) from 19 countries: Abhijit Saha, Abu Sufian, Jack Allen, Shahbaz Ali, Ali Safaa Sadiq, Aliya Fahmi, Atiqa Fakhar, Atiqa Firdous, Sukanto Bhattacharya, Robert N. Boyd, Victor Chang, Victor Christianto, V. Christy, Dao The Son, Debjit Dutta, Azeddine Elhassouny, Fazal Ghani, Fazli Amin, (...) Anirudha Ghosha, Nasruddin Hassan, Hoang Viet Long, Jhulaneswar Baidya, Jin Kim, Jun Ye, Darjan Karabašević, Vasilios N. Katsikis, Ieva Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė, F. Kaymarm, Nour Eldeen M. Khalifa, Madad Khan, Qaisar Khan, M. Khoshnevisan, Kifayat Ullah,, Volodymyr Krasnoholovets, Mukesh Kumar, Le Hoang Son, Luong Thi Hong Lan, Tahir Mahmood, Mahmoud Ismail, Mohamed Abdel-Basset, Siti Nurul Fitriah Mohamad, Mohamed Loey, Mai Mohamed, K. Mohana, Kalyan Mondal, Muhammad Gulfam, Muhammad Khalid Mahmood, Muhammad Jamil, Muhammad Yaqub Khan, Muhammad Riaz, Nguyen Dinh Hoa, Cu Nguyen Giap, Nguyen Tho Thong, Peide Liu, Pham Huy Thong, Gabrijela Popović‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬, Surapati Pramanik, Dmitri Rabounski, Roslan Hasni, Rumi Roy, Tapan Kumar Roy, Said Broumi, Saleem Abdullah, Muzafer Saračević, Ganeshsree Selvachandran, Shariful Alam, Shyamal Dalapati, Housila P. Singh, R. Singh, Rajesh Singh, Predrag S. Stanimirović, Kasan Susilo, Dragiša Stanujkić, Alexandra Şandru, Ovidiu Ilie Şandru, Zenonas Turskis, Yunita Umniyati, Alptekin Ulutaș, Maikel Yelandi Leyva Vázquez, Binyamin Yusoff, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, Zhao Loon Wang.‬‬‬‬. (shrink)

Przedmiotem artykułu są teorie pierwszych ontologów greckich: Ksenofanesa, Parmenidesa i Melissosa na temat bytu, jego jedności i tożsamości, z uwzględnieniem niektórych poglądów Zenona. Naczelnym problemem artykułu jest pytanie o naturę relacji bytu względem świata u filozofów eleackich. Celem jest opis sposobu rozumienia tego powiązania, zaproponowanego przez każdego z nich. W rezultacie analiz porównawczych, opierając się na badaniu zachowanych fragmentów tekstów starożytnych, okazało się, że Ksenofanes jest autorem koncepcji Jedno-Boga tożsamego ze światem, zaś Parmenides sformułował oryginalną teorię bytu transcendującego świat cielesny, (...) ale stanowiącego jego rację tożsamości jako całości. Przedstawiona w artykule interpretacja poglądów Parmenidesa stanowi ujęcie odmienne od powszechnie przyjmowanego. Melissos natomiast wykorzystując Parmenidejski sposób rozumienia bytu jako czegoś jednego umieszcza go w świecie. Zbliża to poglądy Melissosa do poglądów Ksenofanesa. Każda z tych teorii nastręcza jednak wielu problemów interpretacyjnych, wynikających przede wszystkim z niewielkiej ilości tekstów źródłowych. ------------------------- Zgłoszono: 06/11/2022. Zrecenzowano: 13/12/2022. Zaakceptowano do publikacji: 20/12/2022. (shrink)