|
ИСТИНА |
Войти в систему Регистрация |
ИСТИНА ЦЭМИ РАН |
||
The asymmetric model of the relation between the history of science and the philosophy of scienceтезисы доклада
- Автор: Фурсов А.А.
- Сборник: 26th International Congress of History of Science and Thechnology
- Тезисы
- Год издания: 2021
- Место издания: Praga
- Номер статьи: https://ichst2021.confea.net/en/event-programme-list
- Аннотация: The most popular model of the relation between the history of science and the philosophy of science was proclaimed by I.Lacatos in his “History of Science and its rational Reconstructions”: “Philosophy of science without history of science is empty; history of science without philosophy of science is blind”. This model is symmetric. The asymmetric model of the relation between the history of science and the philosophy of science was developed by T.Kuhn, who claimed that the history of science must be autonomous discipline and that the philosophy of science could not help much historian of science. I’m going to reveal the historical context of this conflict between two models and present some arguments in favor of the asymmetric model. The modern state of this conflict I would like to present referring to the scientific realism – antirealism debate. I argue that the main trouble for the modern philosophy of science is the threat of it’s scholastization. In order to prove numerous arguments pro and contra scientific realism or antirealism, philosophers of science develop many “artificial” interpretations of the history of science that really could disorient professional historian. This strategy doesn’t enrich the number of relevant historical interpretation of science or help us to recognize new actual historical contexts. That is why T.Kuhn point of view is actual nowadays and the history of science must be autonomous discipline.
- Добавил в систему: Фурсов Александр Андреевич