In this paper, through the analysis of the division of different scientific fields, we deal with the nature of mathematics as a scientific discipline. Through the historical analysis of the division of science, but also the analysis of the nature of mathematics and the ontological status of the objects that mathematics deals with, we show that the now-established divisions among scientific fields are the result of social circumstances and that mathematics itself is closer to the humanities than the natural sciences.

Proturječnost stavova o položaju biologije unutar ili izvan područja znanosti može se podijeliti na nekoliko osnovnih pristupa. Prvi pristup smješta biologiju izvan znanstvenog područja zbog nedostatka univerzalnosti, nedostatka strogih generalizacija i nedostatka stroge kvantitativne strukture. Drugi pristup smatra biologiju znanošću koju treba svesti na fiziku. Treći pristup vidi značajne razlike između biologije s jedne, i fizike i kemije s druge strane, ali ipak tvrdi da je biologija prava znanost, no samostalna i s vlastitim pojmovnikom i metodologijom. Poredba načela prirodne (...) znanosti s obilježjima biologije ukazuje na nedostatak determinizma, neprikladnost esencijalizma i manjkavosti redukcionističkog pristupa u području biološkog. S druge strane, biologija ima neka posebna obilježja. Biologija je znanost samostalna u određenju svoga područja i biranju prikladnog pojmovnika i metoda proučavanja. Njezino područje, pojmovnik, logika i metodologija ne podudaraju se potpuno s onima ostalih znanosti, ali se u potpunosti ni ne razilaze.Ambiguities of attitudes on the position of biology within or outside of science domain can be divided into few basic approaches. The first approach places biology outside the scientific domain due to its lack of universality, the lack of strong generalizations and the lack of strong quantitative structure. The second approach claims that science of biology should be reduced to physics. The third approach accepts significant differences between biology on one side, and physics and chemistry on the other side, but it still claims that biology is a hard science, autonomous and with its own terminology and methodology. Comparison of principles of natural science with features of biology demonstrates a lack of determinism, inappropriateness of essentialism and pitfalls of reductionist approach in biological sphere. On the other hand, biology has some specific features. Biology is a science that has autonomy in determining its domain and choice of appropriate terminology and inquiry methods. Its domain, terminology, logic and methodology are not entirely in accordance with other sciences, but also are not completely diverse. (shrink)

Formal indication is one of the central concepts of Heidegger’s hermeneutics. Formal means that something is to be fulfilled. Indication indicates the direction of fulfilling. Heidegger developed the so-called by him, „formal indication”, respectively „formally indicative concepts” as a methodological justification of the philosophical terminology. The term „formal indication” aroses in the context of the phenomenology of life, where Heidegger introduces his „hermeneutics of facticity”, which is also referred to as „formally indicative hermeneutics“. This is about something crucial for Heidegger’s (...) thinking. The epistemological and transcendental tradition of viewing finds here a turn into the existential and historical. The indication always remains at the distance of pointing, that is, someone to whom something is shown, must see for himself. Formal indication indicates the direction for seeing. What can be seen, one must learn to say, to say in the own words. The old problem of the concretization and the conceptualization, which runs through German idealism, gets here a new expression. (shrink)

The article reviews Christopher Hitchcock’s Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science, aims to present contemporary issues in philosophy of science through a series of eight debates between leading analytic philosophers in the given specialist field. Each contributor argues for or against a proposed motion of the debate, ranging from issues of metaphysics and epistemology of science to specific philosophical questions in physics, biology and psychology. In that they draw on a wealth of techniques from the practice of philosophy of science (...) from conceptual clarifications to invocation of examples from scientific practice. Nonethless, against the background of philosophical work associated with contemporary scientific practice the topics selected for this volume seem limited in both depth and scope. The volume’s great worth is in presenting ‘philosophy of science in action’ by exercising many tricks of the trade in several self-contained chapters. (shrink)

U ovome radu istražujem Polanyijeve glavne argumente za akademsku slobodu. Akademska i politička sloboda međusobno su blisko povezane: ako država preuzme kontrolu nad znanošću, to dovodi do kolapsa same slobode u cijelome društvu. Njegovi argumenti protiv totalitarizma oslanjaju se na njegovu anti-pozitivističku filozofiju znanosti. On definira totalitarizam kao poricanje akademske slobode koje se temelji na pragmatičkom poimanju znanosti i instrumentalističkim interpretacijama moralnih vrijednosti. Polanyijeva ideja znanosti je duhovni, idealistički opis zajednice slobodnih intelektualaca koji su strastveno posvećeni potrazi (...) za istinom i imaju autonomnu zajednicu s vlastitim pravilima i autonomnim upravljanjem. Potraga za istinom radi nje same je bitan cilj znanosti, koji se može postići jedino ako znanost ostane slobodna od političkih, ideoloških i ekonomskih utejcaja. Tvrdim da Polanyijevi uvidi mogu biti relevantni i danas, kada znanost može postati instrument profitno orijentiranih praktičnih potreba umjesto potrage za istinom samom i kada se humanistika često smatra nepotrebnom.In the present essay I investigate Polanyi’s main arguments for academic freedom. Academic and political freedom are closely related to each other: if state takes control over science, it will lead to the collapse of freedom itself in the whole society. His arguments against totalitarianism rely on his anti-positivist philosophy of science. He diagnoses totalitarianism as a denial of academic freedom which is based on a pragmatist view of science and instrumentalist interpretation of moral values. Polanyi’s idea of science is a spiritual, idealistic description of a community of free intellectuals who are passionately committed to seeking the truth and have an autonomous community with its own rules and autonomous direction. Seeking the truth for its own sake is the essential goal of science, which can be accomplished only if it remains free from political, ideological and economical influences. I will argue that Polanyi’s insights can still be relevant today, when science can become an instrument of profit-oriented practical needs instead of seeking the truth itself, and the humanities are often considered unnecessary.Dans cet essai, j’examine les principaux arguments de Polany pour la liberté académique. La liberté académique et politique sont étroitement liées : si l’Etat prend le contrôle de la science, cela conduira à l’effondrement de la liberté elle-même dans toute la société. Ses arguments contre le totalitarisme reposent sur sa philosophie anti-positiviste de la science. Il diagnostique le totalitarisme comme un refus de la liberté académique fondé sur une conception pragmatique de la science et une interprétation instrumentaliste des valeurs morales. L’idée de la science de Polany est une description spirituelle, idéaliste, d’une communauté d’intellectuels libres, passionnément dédiés à la recherche de la vérité, et qui ont une communauté avec ses propres règles et une direction autonome. La recherche de la vérité pour elle-même est l’objectif essentiel de la science, ce qui peut être accompli uniquement si elle demeure libre des influences politiques, idéologiques et économiques. J’affirme que les visions de Polany peuvent toujours être pertinentes aujourd’hui, alors que la science peut devenir un instrument des besoins pratiques orientés vers le profit au lieu de chercher la vérité elle-même, et alors que les sciences humaines sont souvent considérées comme inutiles.Im präsenten Artikel gehe ich Polanyis Hauptargumentation für akademische Freiheit auf den Grund. Die akademische und politische Freiheit sind miteinander nahe verwandt: Unterzieht der Staat die Wissenschaft seiner Kontrolle, endet dies im Kollaps der Freiheit selbst in der gesamten Gesellschaft. Polanyis Begründung gegen den Totalitarismus stützt sich auf dessen antipositivistische Philosophie der Wissenschaft. Er diagnostiziert den Totalitarismus als Versagung der akademischen Freiheit, die auf dem pragmatischen Blickpunkt der Wissenschaft als auch der instrumentalistischen Interpretation der Moralwerte basiert. Polanyis Wissenschaftsvorstellung ist eine spirituelle, idealistische Schilderung einer Gemeinschaft freier Intellektueller, die sich der Suche nach Wahrheit glutvoll gewogen zeigt und über eine autonome Community mit eigenen Regeln sowie autonomer Verwaltung verfügt. Die Erkundung der Wahrheit um ihrer selbst willen repräsentiert das essenzielle Vorhaben der Wissenschaft, welches sich allein unter Bewahrung ihrer Independenz von politischen, ideologischen bzw. wirtschaftlichen Einflüssen zuwege bringen lässt. Ich halte dafür, Polanyis Einblicke hätten auch heutzutage Relevanzpotenzial, zu der Zeit, wenn sich die Wissenschaft auf ein Werkzeug des profitorientierten praktischen Begehrens reduzieren könnte, anstatt nach der Wahrheit selbst zu fahnden, und die Geisteswissenschaften gehäuft als entbehrlich abgestempelt werden. (shrink)

Joachim Ritter i drugi su pokušali opravdati duhovne znanosti pomoću teorije »kompenzacije«. Prema Ritteru, duhovne znanosti nadoknađuje gubitke i rizike uzrokovane progresom modernizacije. Teorija kompenzacije naizgled opravdava duhovne znanosti u odnosu prema dinamici modernog svijeta. To se prima facie čini privlačnim u vremenu kada je očit uspjeh prirodnih znanosti i tehnologije, a duhovne znanosti stavljene u položaj u kojem se moraju braniti. U članku se razmatraju četiri prigovora teoriji kompenzacije: teorija je obilježena antikvarnim pristupom povijesti; (...) uzima u obzir samo konzervatorsku funkciju duhovnih znanosti; degradira duhovne znanosti smatrajući ih tek dodatkom i dopunom kulturnih promjena; te precjenjuje njihovu sposobnost u uravnoteženju gubitaka i rizika modernizacije. Disertacija o povijesti crkve ne nadoknađuje moderni gubitak vjere. Esej o Casparu Davidu Friedrichu nije nikakva nadoknada za uništen krajolik. Uvjerenje da za svaki gubitak ili štetu postoji kompenzacija je vjerojatno vezano uz religijsko vjerovanje u oprost ili uz filozofske argumente za teodiceju. Zaključak je taj da se duhovne znanosti ne smije opravdavati argumentima korisnosti. One su »korisne« jer ne moraju uopće biti korisne. (shrink)

Prikazani su elementi koji olakšavaju orijentaciju u prostoru »kontaminiranom« znanstvenim prisvajanjem istina, vrijednosti, »krunskih« dokaza i konačnih interpretacija. Iz spektra modernih disciplina »izvučena« je molekulska biologija kao model za razumijevanje mehanizama kojim prirodne znanosti privatiziraju sadržaje i područja koja pripadaju široj zajednici, odnosno čitavome društvu. U bogatome arsenalu molekulske biologije posebno se ističe metoda rekombinantne DNK koja je omogućila razvoj GMO-a.GMO-i su »klasična« znanstvena kontroverza u kojoj jedna strana prepoznaje »mutante« kao nepotrebne i defektne izume, dok ih druga strana (...) predstavlja gotovim receptom za rješavanje problema okoliša, prehrane i zdravlja.Razmotrena su četiri prigovora kojima se pokušava demistificirati znanstveni hvalospjev o GMO-u.This manuscript presents elements which enable better orientation in the area “contaminated“ with scientific confiscation of facts, values, crucial evidences, and final interpretations. From the spectrum of modern disciplines, molecular biology is selected as a model for understanding of mechanisms underlying scientific privatization of contents and areas which belong to local community and the whole society as well. The recombinant DNA method, which enabled development of GMO-s, is specifically emphasized in the rich arsenal of molecular biology.GMO-s present “classical” scientific controversy in which one side recognizes these “mutants” as unnecessary and flawed inventions, while the other side introduces them as readymade recipe for solving environment, food and health related problems.Four objections are considered in order to demystify scientific hymn about GMO. (shrink)

T. Kuhn opposes in his articles on history of science the union of the philosophy and history of science. He is defending an interdisciplinary dialog between both sciences. A given problem would be explained there from the point of view od the philosophy of science and of the history of science but not by a unified point of view. However, Kuhn gave with his theory of scientific revolutions the basis for a new science: the theory of the development of science. (...) This science unifies even the analysis of the historical development of science with the rational reconstruction of the development of science. (shrink)

Avtor obravnava Serresovo kritiko koncepta globalne zgodovine na eni strani in njegovo relati-viziranje koncepta rekurentne zgodovine znanosti na drugi strani. Iz dejstva, da je mogoče v realni zgodovini znanosti odkriti vsaj dva osnovna tipa temporalnosti: sekano, diskontinuirano temporalnost invencije in kontinuiteto tradicije, izpelje Serres trditev, da lahko kompleksnost zgodovinskega razvoja znanosti pojasnimo le s kombinacijo zveznih in nezveznih modelov zgodovine znanosti.

Kant je pružio novi modus vivendi između znanosti i religije. Svaka od njih ima svoju stvarnost i funkciju, te se ne »natječu« jedna s drugom. Stvarnost mogućeg znanja pripada znanosti, ona ima potpunu slobodu istraživanja te stvarnosti pomoću svojih metoda. Bio je zadivljen newtonovskom znanošću koja je ovisila o empirijskim promatranjima, ali je smatrao da u znanstvenim metodama postoje ograničenja koja ostavljaju prostora religioznim vjerovanjima. Za Kanta se početna točka religije nalazi u ljudskom osjećaju moralne obveze. Kada djelujemo (...) zbog osjećaja odgovornosti, neizravno potvrđujemo da je svijet moralni poredak; prisutnost moralnog zakona pretpostavlja zakonodavca koji je njegov izvor i jamac.Kant provided a new modus vivendi between sciense and religion. Each has its own realm and function, and they do not «compete» with each other. The realm of possible knowledge belongs to sciense, which has complete freedom to explore that realm using its own methods. He was amazed by Newtonian sciense and its dependence on empirical observation, but he held that scientific methods are limited, which leaves room for religious beliefs. Kant sees the starting point of religion in man’s sense of moral obligation. When our actions are a response to duty, we implicitly affirm that the world is a moral order; the presence of the moral law presupposes the lawgiver as its source and guarantor. (shrink)

Številka 45-46 revije Phainomena z naslovom „Evropsko sporazumevanje – filozofsko razumevanje združuje filozofsko refleksijo o evropskosti s hermenevtičnimi in fenomenološkimi študijami o temah, ki so temeljito opredelile evropski duh v prejšnjem stoletju. Na podlagi tega je mogoče oblikovati vprašanje o filozofsko smislu evropskosti danes in o možnosti prihodnjega evropskega sporazumevanja. Osnovo za to diskusijo najdemo v Husserlovem delu Kriza evropskih znanosti in transcendentalna fenomenologija. .The 45-46 issue of the philosophical journal Phainomena, “European Coming to an Understanding – Philosophical Understanding”, (...) is a collection of philosophical reflections on Europe introducing a number of hermeneutic and phenomenological studies of the topics which fundamentally determined the spirit of Europe of the 20th century. On this basis, it is possible to pose questions about the philosophical meaning of Europe today and of the possibility of the future European coming to an understanding. The fundamental work of this enterprise is Husserl’s work Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. (shrink)

The author reviews the book Continental Philosophy of Science, edited by Gary Gutting. Introductory remarks about the historical relationship between philosophy and science are followed by a presentation and discussion of different philosophies of science and commentaries on the eleven German and French authors whose texts are found in this volume. In addition to her assessment of Guttings’s collection, the author’s overall conclusion is that one characteristic trait of the Continental philosophy of science is its attempt to elaborate a more (...) complete picture of the world, one that takes lived experience into consideration and examines questions excluded by the methodology and concepts of science. (shrink)

Jaspers odbija vulgarno shvaćanje odnosa teologije i filozofije, koje se temelji na suprotnosti vjere i znanja, objave i uma. Vjera nije iracionalna. Polarnost racionalnog i iracionalnog može voditi samo k smetenosti egzistencije. Filozofijska vjera kao vjera misaonog čovjeka, u svako je doba povezana sa znanjem. Iako su znanost i filozofija jedna za drugu vezane, među njima postoji razlika. Smisao znanosti nije znanstveno dokaziv, njega može samo filozofija osvijetliti.

Moj rad u vezi s Vicovom misli polazi od stajališta da sveukupna zapadna filozofska misao – kao uostalom i religija i moderna znanost – predstavlja proizvod čovjekovog obrambenog mehanizma protiv straha od smrti kao sveopćeg ništavila, odnosno kao obrana od evidentnosti da stvari izlaze iz ničega u kojem se, na kraju egzistencijalnog ciklusa, neminovno i vraćaju. Riječ je o evidentnosti koju je starogrčka filozofija prva evocirala i prikazala.U sklopu tog općeg filozofskog obrambenog mehanizma i Vicova »Nova znanost« promatrana je kao (...) još jedan pokušaj da se u kaotičnost još neuređenih društvenih činjenica uvede određeni epistemski red, tako da se fenomenološka zbilja obuhvati u jednom racionalnom totalitetu koji će ljudskom biću pružati sigurnost.U tom smislu, Vicova filozofija, a posebice njegovo glavno djelo Načela nove znanosti, zauzima posebno mjesto unutar zapadne filozofske tradicije, jer u sebi sadržava i ujedinjuje dvije važne komponente europske misli koje će se u moderno doba razvijati u različitim pravcima. Misli se, s jedne strane, na filozofsku misao koja će svoj vrhunac dostići u Hegelovoj sistematizaciji zapadne filozofske misli i, s druge strane, na modernu znanost koja će, u svojoj sve većoj specijalizaciji u sve partikularnije znanstvene discipline i parcijalizaciji same stvarnosti, istinu identificirati s djelotvornošću proučavanih činjenica, ostavljajući po strani apstraktnu, epistemsku istinu filozofije.My report on G. B. Vico’s thought moves from the assumption that all Western philosophy – just as religion and modern science – represents the product of the defence mechanism human beings use against the fear of death seen as absolute nothingness, that is defence from the evidence that things come from the nothingness to which, at the end of their existence, they imminently return. It is the obviousness that Greek philosophy has evoked and showed first.Within this general philosophical defence mechanism Vico’s “New Science” is also seen as an attempt to introduce a kind of epistemic order in the chaos of social facts not yet systemised according to reason, trying in this way to understand the phenomenological reality inside a rational whole capable of granting security to human beings.In this sense Vico’s philosophy and especially his main work, Modern Science, holds an important position in the Western philosophical tradition, as it contains and combines two important constituents of Western thought which in the modern age will develop in various directions. We are referring to the philosophical thought which will reach its climax in Hegel’s systematisation of Western philosophy and on the other hand, to the modern science that, considered its ever increasing specialisation into always more detailed scientific disciplines and the fragmentation of reality itself, will identify truth with the fulfilling efficacy of tested facts, leaving behind the abstract epistemic truth of philosophy. (shrink)

Rad se bavi umiješanošću promatrača kao ograničenjem u racionalnom spoznavanju svijeta i otvaranjem prostora za druge oblike spoznaje. U velikoj mjeri ta se problematika tiče odnosa znanosti i vjere, pa se u uvodnom dijelu rada polazi od odnosa vjere i znanosti, a koji je kroz povijest prolazio kroz različite faze. U prvom poglavlju analiziraju se upravo etape kroz koje je prolazio odnos vjere, odnosno religije i znanosti: jedinstvo u srednjovjekovnoj sintezi, razilaženje i sukob, dijalog i komplementarnost. Za (...) ostvarenje dijaloga između vjere i znanosti ponajprije je zaslužan papa Pio XII. svojom enciklikom Humani generis . Ipak, najveći doprinos dijaloškom odnosu vjere i znanosti dao je papa Ivan Pavao II. koji je smatrao da jedna drugoj može biti od velike koristi te da samo dinamički odnos između teologije i znanosti može otkriti granice koje čuvaju cjelovitost obiju disciplina. Na jednak način, veliki doprinos uspostavi dijaloga vjere i znanosti dali su i znanstvenici, kako sa strane teološko-filozofske misli, tako i sa strane prirodoslovnih znanosti, osobito fizičari.U ovom radu se čini jedan iskorak u pogledu određenosti i konkretnog sadržaja granice koju znanosti ne mogu prijeći i preko koje se nalazi prostor za druge oblike spoznaje i za vjeru. Polazi se od stava da je za proučavanje bilo koga predmeta taj predmet potrebno odvojiti od promatrača, kako bi ga ovaj mogao podvrgnuti objektivnom proučavanju. Sam po sebi, taj je stav opće prihvaćen u svim znanostima i filozofiji, ali je suviše uopćen da bi eliminirao sve oblike umiješanosti i rafinirane pogreške pri zaključivanju.Pokazuje se da se u termodinamici i u Newtonovoj mehanici može točno definirati takvo stajalište promatrača, kojim je on potpuno odvojen od pojave koju promatra i iz kojega je u stanju da promatranu pojavu objektivno ispita. Takvo se stajalište onda količinski razlikuje od drugih stajališta s kojima bi bio »umiješan« u pojavu koju proučava. U znanostima u kojima se to može učiniti eksperimentalno se osnivaju, nalaze i koriste zakoni koji se mogu zvati »objektivnima«. No i u takvim znanostima ima oblika umiješanosti koji mogu ostati skriveni desetljećima i duže. U radu se ukazuje na tri takva oblika diskretne umiješanosti u termodinamici i mehanici. Za znanosti u kojima se točno količinsko razdvajanje objektivnih i umiješanih stajališta promatrača nije moglo učiniti, ili se načelno ne može učiniti, ne može biti ni sigurnosti od umiješanosti i time od rafiniranih pogrešaka u racionalnom zaključivanju. Odatle se sa znatnom heurističkom snagom izvodi zaključak da se u područjima spoznaje kojima se bave znanosti i filozofija racionalnim zaključivanjem može učiniti rafinirana pogreška i da postoji prostor za druge oblike spoznaje i vjeru.The introductory part of the work deals with the relation between science and other forms of cognition which has undergone various phases throughout history. The first chapter analyses the stages through which the relation between faith, i.e. religion, and science has passed: unity in medieval synthesis, divergence and conflict, dialogue and complementarity. Much credit goes to Pope Pius XII with his encyclical Humani Generis for the development of dialogue between religion and science. However, Pope John Paul II made the greatest contribution to the dialogical relation between faith and science. He believed that their relation could be of great value and that only the dynamic relation between religion and science could discover the limits that hold the integrity of both disciplines. In the same way, scientists, those of the theological-philosophical thought as well as those of natural sciences, especially physicists, have made a great contribution to setting up a dialogue between religion and science.This work is a step forward regarding the determinateness and concrete content of the limit that sciences cannot cross and beyond which is a space for other forms of cognition and for faith. The starting point is a standpoint that if one wants to study a subject, that subject has to be set apart from the observer, so that it can be objectively studied. In itself, that standpoint has been universally accepted in all sciences and in philosophy too, but it is too generalized to eliminate all the forms of interference and refined errors when drawing conclusions.It is established that in thermodynamics and in Newton’s mechanics one can precisely define such a standpoint of the observer, by which he/she is completely detached from the phenomenon he/she is observing and from which he/she is able to research the observed phenomenon objectively. Such a standpoint quantitatively differs from other standpoints, by which he/she would be “involved” with the phenomenon he/she is investigating. In the sciences in which it is possible to do that, laws that can be called “objective” are experimentally passed and adopted. But even in such sciences there are forms of involvement that may remain hidden for decades and longer. This work points at such three forms of discrete involvement in thermodynamics and mechanics. For the sciences in which a precise quantitative separation between the observer’s objective and involved standpoints was not possible, or is not principally possible, there cannot be safety of involvement and consequently of refined errors in rational concluding. Hence, with considerable heuristic strength, the following conclusion is drawn: All sciences, including philosophy, should explicitly take and put forward a view that, by rational conclusions, it is possible to make a refined mistake in their areas of cognition and that there is room for other forms of cognition and for religion. (shrink)