ISBN:
9789400990173
Language:
English
Pages:
Online-Ressource
,
digital
Edition:
Springer eBook Collection. Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
Series Statement:
Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 61
Series Statement:
Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science 61
Parallel Title:
Erscheint auch als
Parallel Title:
Erscheint auch als
Parallel Title:
Erscheint auch als
Keywords:
Philosophy (General)
;
Science Philosophy
;
History
;
Science—Philosophy.
Abstract:
I: Galileo’s Dialogue -- 1. Faith Versus Reason: The Rhetorical Form and Content of Galileo’s Dialogue -- 2. Fact and Reasoning: The Logical Structure of Galileo’s Argument -- 3. Emotion, Aesthetics, and Persuasion: The Rhetorical Force of Galileo’s Argument -- 4. Truth and Method: The Scientific Content of Galileo’s Dialogue -- 5. Theory and Practice: The Methodological Content of Galileo’s Science -- II: Logical and Methodological Critiques -- 6. Concreteness and Judgment: The Dialectical Nature of Galileo’s Methodology -- 7. The Primacy of Reasoning: The Logical Character of Galileo’s Methodology -- 8. The Rationality of Science and the Science of Rationality: Critique of Subjectivism -- 9. The History of Science and the Science of History: Critique of Apriorism -- 10. The Erudition of Logic and the Logic of Erudition: Critique of Galileo Scholarship -- 11. The Psychology of Logic and the Logic of Psychology: Critique of the Psychology of Reasoning -- 12. The Rhetoric of Logic and the Logic of Rhetoric: Critique of the New Rhetoric -- 13. The Logic of Science and the Science of Logic: Toward a Science of Reasoning -- III: Theory of Reasoning -- 14. Propositional Structure: The Understanding of Reasoning -- 15. Active Involvement: The Evaluation of Reasoning -- 16. Galileo as a Logician: A Model and a Data Basis -- 17. Criticism, Complexity, and Invalidities: Theoretical Considerations -- Concluding Remarks / Toward a Galilean Theory of Rationality -- Selected Bibliography.
Abstract:
The work of Galileo has long been important not only as a foundation of modern physics but also as a model - and perhaps the paradigmatic model - of scientific method, and therefore as a leading example of scientific rationality. However, as we know, the matter is not so simple. The range of Galileo readings is so varied that one may be led to the conclusion that it is a case of chacun a son Galileo; that here, as with the Bible, or Plato or Kant or Freud or Finnegan's Wake, the texts themselves underdetermine just what moral is to be pointed. But if there is no canonical reading, how can the texts be taken as evidence or example of a canonical view of scientific rationality, as in Galileo? Or is it the case, instead, that we decide a priori what the norms of rationality are and then pick through texts to fmd those which satisfy these norms? Specifically, how and on what grounds are we to accept or reject scientific theories, or scientific reasoning? If we are to do this on the basis of historical analysis of how, in fact, theories came to be accepted or rejected, how shall we distinguish 'is' from 'ought'? What follows (if anything does) from such analysis or reconstruction about how theories ought to be accepted or rejected? Maurice Finocchiaro's study of Galileo brings an important and original approach to the question of scientific rationality by way of a systematic read.
DOI:
10.1007/978-94-009-9017-3
URL:
Volltext
(lizenzpflichtig)
Permalink
