Pierre Duhem e Ernst Mach: Ciência e Filosofia
Pierre Duhem e Ernst Mach: Ciência e Filosofia
Organizadores: María de Paz; Antonio Augusto Passos Videira; Álvaro Balsas, SJ
2018, Volume 74, Fasc. 1
DOI 10.17990/RPF/2018_74_1_0000
Pierre Duhem e Ernst Mach: Ciência e Filosofia
Organizadores: María de Paz; Antonio Augusto Passos Videira; Álvaro Balsas, SJ
2018, Volume 74, Fasc. 1
DOI 10.17990/RPF/2018_74_1_0000
Pierre Duhem e Ernst Mach: Ciência e Filosofia
Editor | María de Paz |
---|---|
Editor | Antonio Augusto Passos Videira |
Editor | Álvaro Balsas, SJ |
Rights | © 2018 Aletheia - Associação Científica e Cultural | © 2018 Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia |
Publication | Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia |
Volume | 74 |
Issue | 1 |
Place | Braga |
Publisher | Axioma - Publicacções da Faculdade de Filosofia |
ISBN |
978-972-697-294-5 (Paperback) ; 978-972-697-295-2 (eBook) |
ISSN |
0870-5283;2183-461X |
Date | 2018 |
DOI | 10.17990/RPF/2018_74_1_0000 |
Language | Portuguese, English, Spanish |
# of Pages | 352 |
Date Added | 27/04/2018 |
Modified | 27/04/2018 |
Presentation | Ernst Mach (1838-1916) and Pierre Duhem (1861-1916) were leading scientists, philosophers and historians of science of their times. They lived and worked in a context marked by deep changes in the natural sciences, and in an epoch of intense social transformations. Regarding the sciences, we could just mention the development of electromagnetic theory, the decline of classical mechanics, the development of evolutionary theory, the emergence of the special and general theories of relativity or the controversy on the atomic structure of nature. Concerning society, we have to remember the historical background previous to the World War I and the cultural environment developed in Europe in those years. As to the relationship between science and society, the end of the nineteenth century witnessed the emergence of a radical critique of science, which questioned its fundamental values. In a way, we can understand the philosophies of these two figures as replies to such criticisms. The main purpose of this thematic issue was to offer a forum for further re-questioning Mach’s and Duhem’s views and the impact that their work can still have nowadays. Our wish was to provide fresh views on the work of both authors, one hundred years after their passing. We think that the papers below have very well accomplished this aim. |
Contents |
María De Paz and Antonio Augusto Passos Videira, “Presentation – Pierre Duhem and Ernst Mach: Science and Philosophy,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 74, no. 1 (2018): 13–16, DOI 10.17990/RPF/2018_74_1_0013
José R. N. Chiappin, “A Methodology for the Theory of Science and Its Application to the Reconstruction of the Metaphysical Level of Duhem’s Theory of Science,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 74, no. 1 (2018): 19–58, DOI 10.17990/RPF/2018_74_1_0019
Alexander Maar, “Aspectos da Filosofia da Ciência de Pierre Duhem: Variedades de Subdeterminação Empírica e a Função do Bom Senso na Escolha entre Teorias,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 74, no. 1 (2018): 59–84, DOI 10.17990/RPF/2018_74_1_0059
Rogelio Miranda Vilchis, “The Distinction Between Physics and Metaphysics in Duhem’s Philosophy,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 74, no. 1 (2018): 85–114, DOI 10.17990/RPF/2018_74_1_0085
Carlos Fils Puig and Antonio Augusto Passos Videira, “Que Sentido dar à Metafísica e ao Senso Comum? Uma Análise das Atitudes Filosóficas de Mach e Duhem à Luz da Distinção entre Fato e Valor,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 74, no. 1 (2018): 115–32, DOI 10.17990/RPF/2018_74_1_0115
Damian Islas Mondragon, “Ernst Mach, Karl R. Popper y Thomas S. Kuhn: Aportaciones al Estudio de los Experimentos Mentales,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 74, no. 1 (2018): 133–50, DOI 10.17990/RPF/2018_74_1_0133
Pietro Gori, “Ernst Mach and Pragmatic Realism,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 74, no. 1 (2018): 151–72, DOI 10.17990/RPF/2018_74_1_0151
Isabel Serra and Elisa Maia, “Looking for Routes in Mach’s Epistemology,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 74, no. 1 (2018): 173–96, DOI 10.17990/RPF/2018_74_1_0173
Ricardo Lopes Coelho, “Estudo Histórico-Crítico da Fundamentação da Mecânica por Mach,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 74, no. 1 (2018): 197–218, DOI 10.17990/RPF/2018_74_1_0197
María De Paz, “Reconsidering Mach in the Light of the Interplay of Practices,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 74, no. 1 (2018): 219–46, DOI 10.17990/RPF/2018_74_1_0219
Bruno Nobre and Antonio Augusto Passos Videira, “Philosophy Matters: Steven Weinberg, Reductionism, and Inevitability,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 74, no. 1 (2018): 249–78, DOI 10.17990/RPF/2018_74_1_0249
Rodolfo Petrônio da Costa, “Bohr e Einstein: Filosofia, Debate e Controvérsia,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 74, no. 1 (2018): 279–94, DOI 10.17990/RPF/2018_74_1_0279
John Farina, “What’s Missing in the Secularization Debate?,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 74, no. 1 (2018): 295–308, DOI 10.17990/RPF/2018_74_1_0295
Bruno Cunha, “Kant e a sua Crítica a Hutcheson e à Doutrina do Sentimento Moral na Década de 1770,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 74, no. 1 (2018): 309–26, DOI 10.17990/RPF/2018_74_1_0309
Ricardo Barroso Batista, “Book Review - R. Paul Thompson e Ross E.G. Upshur, Philosophy of Medicine: An Introduction,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 74, no. 1 (2018): 329–32, DOI 10.17990/RPF/2018_74_1_0329
Ricardo Barroso Batista, “Book Review - Edward Feser, Five Proofs of the Existence of God,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 74, no. 1 (2018): 333–38, DOI 10.17990/RPF/2018_74_1_0333 |