Oma algses mitmetähenduslikkuses on see F. Baconi aforism kõige tihendatum tõdemus, mis tõmbab olemusliku eraldusjoone ühelt poolt antiikse ja keskaegse ning teisalt uusaegse arusaama vahele teadusest ja teadusteadmisest. Artiklis püüab autor anda võimaluste piires tervikpildi uusaja teaduse industriaalselt (tehnoloogiliselt) orienteeritud teadmistüübi tekkimisest. Uusaja teaduse kujunemiseks vajaliku pöörde maailmavaateliste eeldustena tuleb käsitleda: (1) põhimõtteliselt uut subjekti ja objekti käsitust; (2) täiesti uut väärtusruumi, uut teaduse ideoloogiat (ilmalikkus, kriitiline vaim, tõesus ja praktiline kasulikkus); (3) tunnetuslaadi muutust — (...) kontemplatsioonilt interventsioonile, kvaliteedi kirjeldamiselt kvantiteedi uurimisele; (4) looduse käsitlemist Kosmose asemel seaduspäraselt korrastatud objektide “väljana”. Uue tunnetusstiili — empiirilise ja teoreetilise tunnetuse kokkuviimine, hüpoteetilis-deduktiivse metodoloogia kujundamine Galilei poolt, abstraktse ja sünteetilis-tekstilise loomuga spekulatsiooni asendumine uurimisobjekti ehituse, korrapära ja põhjuslikkuse objektiivse analüüsiga, universaalsete loodusseaduste doktriini kujunemine jms—kujunemine konstitueeris uut tüüpi teadmise. Teadmise kui nähtava maailma piltkoopia asemele luuakse teadmine kui loodusobjektide seaduspära analüütiline rekonstruktsioon. See on vormiltmatemaatiline, päritolult eksperimentaalne ning loodusobjektide kontrollimisele ja ümbertegemisele suunatud nn valdamisteadmine. This F. Bacon's aphorism in its original ambiguity is the most condensed belief that draws a distinctive essential line between ancient and medieval understanding of science and scientific knowledge on one hand and modern understanding on the other. The author aims at providing, as far as possible, an integral overview of emerging of the industrially (technologically) orientated type of knowledge of modern times. Ideological/philosophical preconditions of the change necessary for emerging of modern science are: (1) a fundamentally new approach to the subject and object; (2) a completely new system of values, a new ideology of science (secularity, critical spirit, trueness and utilitarianism); (3) a change in manner of cognizance - from contemplation to intervention, from describing quality to studying quantity; (4) treating nature as a naturally organised "field" of objects instead of the Cosmos. Emerging of a new style of cognizance - bringing together of empirical and theoretical cognition, the devise of the hypothetical-deductive method by Galilei, replacement of speculations abstract and synthetic-textual in nature with objective study of the structure, regularity and causality of the object of study, establishment of the doctrine of universal natural laws etc - constituted a new type of knowledge. Knowledge as a copy of the visible world is replaced by knowledge as an analytical reconstruction of the regularity of natural objects. It is so-called dispositive knowledge, morphologically mathematical, originally experimental and aimed at control and alteration of natural objects. (shrink)

Käesoleva artikli eesmärgiks on selgitada, milline on ja peaks olema filosoofia panus sotsiaalse tunnetuse uurimisvaldkonnas. Vastustades kolme populaarset väidet, mille kohaselt filosoofiat ei ole teaduse tegemiseks tarvis, selgitan, kuidas filosoofid panustavad ning peaksid jätkuvalt panustama sotsiaalse tunnetuse uurimisse. Eraldi käsitlen mõtteliste eksperimentide rolli sotsiaalse tunnetuse uurimisel ning väidan, et kuigi klassikalised filosoofilised mõttelised eksperimendid ei sobi sotsiaalse tunnetuse valdkonna teaduslike probleemide lahendamiseks, tuleks rahvapsühholoogia uurimisel ulatuslikumalt rakendada eksperimentaalfilosoofilisi meetodeid. Väidan, et filosoofid analüüsivad sotsiaalse tunnetuse valdkonnas tehtud uurimistööd enamasti normatiivsetel (...) eesmärkidel, kuid tarvis oleks ka sotsiaalse tunnetuse uurimistöö põhjalikumat deskriptiivset analüüsimist. Käsitlen ka fenomenoloogia võimalikku rolli sotsiaalse tunnetuse valdkonnas, selgitades, mille poolest fenomenoloogia panus erineb mittefenomenoloogilise filosoofia panusest ning milline on fenomenoloogia potentsiaal sotsiaalse tunnetuse uurimisel. The aim of the paper is to explain what is and what should be the contribution of philosophy to the social cognition research. I refute three popular claims against the necessity of philosophy in scientific research and bring out several ways of how philosophers contribute and should continue to contribute to social cognition research. I clarify the role of thought experiments in studying social cognition and argue that although classical philosophical thought experiments are unsuitable for solving scientific problems in this area, the methods of experimental philosophy should be more widely used for studying folk psychology. I claim that whereas philosophers tend to analyse the research of social cognition in order to make normative claims, there is likewise a need for more elaborate descriptive analysis. I also analyse the possible role of phenomenology in social cognitive research and explain how does the contribution of phenomenology differ from the contribution of nonphenomenological philosophy and what is the potential of phenomenology in social cognition research. (shrink)

Od samih početaka razvoja kvantne mehanike javlja se potreba metafizičkog razgraničenja “makro” svijeta opisanog “svakodnevnim jezikom” i “mikro” svijeta kojim se bavi formalizam teorije . U tekstu se raspravlja o potrebi pomirenja ovako umjetno razgraničenih svjetova, uz pregled najvažnijih pravaca tumačenja formalizma teorije. Posebno se izlaže Bohrovo “kopenhaško” tumačenje i problemi koje pred njega postavlja EPR misaoni eksperiment. Pregledom Bohrovih odgovora na dani eksperiment, pokazuje se da njegovo tumačenje traži više od ograničenja svakodnevne deskriptivne metafizike pri opisu pojava na mikro-nivou. (...) Na taj način gubi se Bohrovo povlašteno mjesto meðu tumačenjima formalizma teorije. Pokazuje se da se niti MacKinnonov detaljniji shematski prikaz spajanja teoretskog i svakodnevnog jezika ne može primijeniti na zaključke EPR eksperimenta i Bohorov odgovor na njih. Sam MacKinnon nudi prijedloge izmjena “svakodnevnog” jezika uvjetovane matematičkim zaključcima kvantne mehanike, ali se i one pokazuju previše radikalnima i grubima da bi zauzele povlašteno mjesto u odnosu na ostala tumačenja teoretskog formalizma koja sa sobom nose velike ontološke i konceptualne zahtjeve.Ever since the beginning of development of Quantum Mechanics there was a metaphysical division between the “macro” world as described in “everyday language” and the “micro” world described by quantum formalism . A discussion is offered of the need to reunite these arbitrarily divided worlds through an overview of the main interpretations of the formalism. Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation, as well as the problems it faces due to EPR thought experiment, is presented in greater detail. It is claimed that Bohr’s answers to the said experiment demand more than a restriction of everyday descriptive metaphysics, when describing phenomena at the micro-level. Thus, the special place Bohr’s interpretation takes among other interpretations of the formalism is forfeited. It is also shown that MacKinnon’s more detailed schema aiming to connect the theoretical and everyday language cannot be applied to EPR conclusions and Bohr’s reply to those. MacKinnon’s own modifications of the “everyday language” induced by the mathematical conclusions of Quantum Mechanics are considered too radical and too coarse to take the vacated special place among formalism interpretations. (shrink)

U osamnaestom stoljeću Bošković je želio iznaći da li je svjetlo val ili čestica. Stoga je sugerirao pokus u kojemu treba napuniti dalekozor vodom i time pronaći promjene iznosa aberacije zvijezde. Stotinu godina kasnije Sir Airy je izveo eksperiment, ali s negativnomrezultatom. Lopašić je to objasnio pomoću Einsteinova principa specijalne relativnosti.In 18th century Bošković tried to find out if light is wave or corpuscule. Therefore, he suggestedto fill a telescope with water to test alteration in the amount of stellar aberration. (...) Hundred yearslater, Sir Airy had done this experiment, but with negative result. Lopašić had explainedit by means of Einstein’s principle of the special relativity. (shrink)

Physics has for a long time been regarded as the most mature of all sciences due to strict mathematically formulated laws of physics and success of theories in applications, for which it has been taken as the example of scientificity which other sciences should strive towards. Just what aspect of physics it is that is regarded as the cause of its success and hence the yardstick of scientificity – this question has given rise to differing opinions. In his book Making (...) Social Sciences More Scientific. The Need For Predictive Models Rein Taagepera criticises the opinion that physics is a rigorous science ‘merely’ due to the use of mathematical operations and numerical accuracy of results. He shows that the strictness of physics consists instead in its method that allows to set numbers and mathematical formalism into correspondence with real phenomena in a way that enables application (first of all prediction), and to unite physical theories into uniform, integral systems. At the same time he teaches how it would be possible to reach the same in social sciences. In the first part of my review I will give an overview of the book’s chapters, describing in more detail Taagepera’s general understanding of science and scientific method. In the second part of the review I analyse the positions presented in the book from the point of view of philosophy of science (particularly that of constructive realism), providing examples from social sciences. With my critique I show that the society cannot be handled with strict theories similar to those of physics, and that in order to raise the applicational strength of social sciences, other means often suit better than rendering them similar to physics by developing mathematical formalism. (shrink)

U radu se istražuju sličnosti i razlike između misaoni eksperimenata i argumenata na osnovu zamislivosti. Brani se teza da intuicije igraju ključnu ulogu u opravdavanju misaonih eksperimenata, dok sa argumentima na osnovu zamislivosti to nije slučaj, zato što je zamislivost, na kojoj su ovi argumenti zasnovani, različita od intuicija i od njih nezavisna. Na bazi ovog uvida ukratko se prikazuju i različite vrste izazova s kojima se suočavaju misaoni ekspeimenti i argumenti na osnovu zamislivosti.

Raspravljamo o ulozi predpojmovnog kompleksnog mišljenja u znanstvenoj spoznaji i razvoju znanosti. Kompleksno mišljenje sa svom heterogenošću i imaginacijom omogućuje održavanje pojmovne strukture i reorganizaciju cjelokupnih teorijskih mreža, ali to “naplaćuje” latentnim prisustvom protuslovlja i nekonzistentnosti.Članak se nastavlja na našu analizu odnosa između kompleksnog i pojmovnog mišljenja u Aristotelovoj Fizici. Ako je kod Aristotela središnji kompleks pojam “mjesta”, kod Galileija je osnovni kompleks zbirka gibanja-stanja. Galilei još nema izrađenu potpunu pojmovnu strukturu mehanike pa možemo reći da je njegova teorijska osnova (...) uronjena u kompleksnu razinu, ali se oslanja na matematičku strukturu i eksperiment i time uspijeva formirati jednu stabilnu teorijsku organizaciju. Time dobiva osnovu za novu teorijsku sistematizaciju i za formiranje pojmovne strukture kakva je Newtonova. Možemo u izvjesnom smislu reći da je time kompleksno mišljenje u znanosti bilo podignuto na višu razinu i dovedeno u pred-paradigmično razdoblje.We discuss the role of the pre-conceptual complex thought in scientificknowledge and in the development of science. The heterogeneity and imagination of complex thought enables the preservation of the conceptual structure and helps reshape entire theoretical nets, however, its downside is reflected in its latent contradiction and inconsistency. This paper is a continuation of our analysis of the relationship between complex and conceptual thought in Aristotle’s Physics. If Aristotle’s central complex is the notion of “place”, then Galileo’s basic complex is the notion of “ movement”. Since Galileo didn’t have an elaborated conceptual structure of mechanics, we can say that his theoretical basis is “steeped” in the level of complex thought, yet it relies on the mathematical structure and experiment, thereby creating a stable theoretical organization which serves as a basis for the new theoretical systematization and for the shaping of a conceptual structure as Newton’s. Thus, we may claim that, in a certain way, this change raised complex thought in science to a higher level, and brought it to a pre-paradigmatic period. (shrink)

Raspravljamo o ulozi predpojmovnog kompleksnog mišljenja u znanstvenoj spoznaji i razvoju znanosti. Kompleksno mišljenje sa svom heterogenošću i imaginacijom omogućuje pojmovne strukture i reorganizaciju cjelokupnih teorijskih mreža, ali to 'naplaćuje' latentnim prisustvom protislovja i nekonzistentnosti. Galilei još nema izrađenu potpunu pojmovnu shemu mehanike, pa možemo reći da je njegove teorijska osnova uronjena u kompleksnu razinu, ali se oslanja na matematičku strukturu i eksperiment i time uspjeva formirati jednu stabilnu teorijsku organizaciju. Možemo u izvesnom smislu reći da je time kompleksno mišljenje (...) u znanosti bilo podignuto na višu razinu i dovedeno u pred-paradigmatično razdoblje. (shrink)

The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is that everything boils down to subjective (...) interests and perspectives is that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is second only to American political campaigns — the most prominent and second only to American political campaigns — the most prominent and second only to American political campaigns — the most prominent and second only to American political campaigns — the most prominent and second only to American political campaigns — the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time. pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time. pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time. pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time. pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time. Science and Relativism Science and Relativism Larry Laudan, Larry Laudan, Larry Laudan, Larry Laudan, Larry Laudan, Science and Relativism. (shrink)

U ovom radu interpretiran je istoriografski opus Erika Hobsbauma, jednog od najpoznatijih i najuticajnijih savremenih istoricara. Imajuci u vidu obimnost i slozenost tog opusa, autor je svoju analizu ogranicio na dva teorijska problema - Hobsbaumovo shvatanje koncepta 'socijalne istorije' i na ispitivanje funkcije 'istorijskog materijalizma' u nastanku i realizaciji tog koncepta. Prema autorovom misljenju, marksizam je Hobsbaumu posluzio kao plodno teorijsko stanoviste u tematizaciji istorije 'dugog XIX veka', ali mu je onemogucio celovitije razumevanje 'kratkog XX veka'. Osnovni razlog za to (...) lezi u cinjenici da 'sovjetski eksperiment' koji je sustinski odredio XX vek ne moze biti objasnjen iz 'istorijsko-materijalisticke' perspektive. Upravo u teorijskim deficitima marksisticke teorijske paradigme, a ne u Hobbaumovoj politickoj pristrasnosti, autor identifikuje osnovni uzrok slabosti njegovog tumacenja epohe komunizma. Stoga je u zakljucnom delu rada formulisana teza o neophodnosti formulisanja novog teorijskog okvira i konceptualnog aparata koji bi nam omogucio ne samo bolje razumevanje proslosti, vec i sadasnjosti i buducnosti. (shrink)

Artiklis arendatakse alternatiivset kontseptsiooni niihästi traditsioonilisele füüsikakesksele teadusliku teooria käsitlusele kui ka seisukohale, et füüsikateooriat ei saa teadusfilosoofias mõista teadusliku teooria mudelina, sest erinevates teadustes on teooriad oma loomult erinevad. Ollakse seisukohal, et teaduslik teooria on ikkagi teadusfilosoofia kategooriana teadusliku distsipliini eripärast sõltumatu. Käsitletakse põhiliselt kahte punkti: (1) miks on teadusfilosoofias põhjust kritiseerida traditsioonilist, füüsika põhjal saadud ettekujutust teaduslikust teooriast? (2) miks ei ole põhjendatud seisukoht, et nt keemias on teaduslik teooria (nt klassikaline keemilise struktuuri teooria) oma loomult füüsikateooriast (nt (...) klassikalisest mehhaanikast) erinev? Traditsioonilise füüsikakeskse lähenemisviisi puhul ei ole piisavalt uuritud, miks õieti füüsikateooria on saanud teadusliku teooria etaloniks. Teoreetilise füüsika keskne teadusekontseptsioon on olnud ühekülgselt orienteeritudmatemaatikale ja loogikale. Kui aga lähtuda teooriast kui mudelite populatsioonist, nagu Ronald Giere on seda teinud ka klassikalise mehhaanika - füüsikakeskse teooriakäsituse traditsioonilise näite - korral, siis osutub see teooriakäsitus tõepoolest invariantseks teatavale tunnetustüübile, mida on alust nimetada teaduslikuks ja mis on selgesti omane ka nt keemiale. In this paper an alternative conception is proposed both to (1) the traditional physics-based conception of scientific theory, and (2) the view that a physical theory cannot be regarded as the model for scientific theory in philosophy of science in general because scientific theories are discipline-dependent. It is argued that scientific theory as a category of philosophy of science is independent of a particular scientific discipline. The main focus of the paper is on two questions: (1) Why is the traditional physics-based conception of scientific theory subject to criticism in philosophy of science? (2) Why is it unjustified to consider a scientific theory in chemistry (e.g., the classical chemical structure theory, which is probably the most characteristic theory of chemistry) to be different in character from a physical theory (e.g., classical mechanics, which is a prototypical example of a theory in the philosophy of science)? In case of the traditional physics-based approach not enough research has been done as to why theories of physics have become the etalon of scientific theory. The accepted view of science, centered on theoretical physics, has been one-sidedly oriented towards mathematics and logic. But when proceeding from a conception of a scientific theory as a population of models, as Ronald Giere has done for the case of classical mechanics - the traditional example of a physical theory -, this conception of a theory really does prove the invariance of a certain type of cognition that can justifiably be called scientific and that is clearly characteristic of, e.g., chemistry as well. (shrink)