Should epistemology and philosophy of science turn to empirical facts?

V. Porus, Z. K. Zagidullin, N. Kuznetsova, V. Lektorsky
{"title":"Should epistemology and philosophy of science turn to empirical facts?","authors":"V. Porus, Z. K. Zagidullin, N. Kuznetsova, V. Lektorsky","doi":"10.21146/2413-9084-2021-26-2-29-35","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Participants in the discussion about the empiricism of modern epistemology Vladimir N. Porus, Nataliya I. Kuznetsova, Zhan K. Zagidullin, Vladislav A. Lektorsky comment on each other’s positions, pointing out the strong and weak points in their justification, agreeing on a number of issues, designating the theses and arguments that are fundamental for their positions, groping for prospects for the further development of the discussed issues. The discussion raises topics related to the prospects for the development of modern epistemology and philosophy of science, with the role of empirical facts and empirics in researching modern scientific knowledge, the problem of the development of the tools and conceptual apparatus of the epistemologist, normative and descriptive attitudes in epistemology and how they help or hinder leading dialogue between philosophers and scientists.","PeriodicalId":227944,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science and Technology","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2413-9084-2021-26-2-29-35","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Participants in the discussion about the empiricism of modern epistemology Vladimir N. Porus, Nataliya I. Kuznetsova, Zhan K. Zagidullin, Vladislav A. Lektorsky comment on each other’s positions, pointing out the strong and weak points in their justification, agreeing on a number of issues, designating the theses and arguments that are fundamental for their positions, groping for prospects for the further development of the discussed issues. The discussion raises topics related to the prospects for the development of modern epistemology and philosophy of science, with the role of empirical facts and empirics in researching modern scientific knowledge, the problem of the development of the tools and conceptual apparatus of the epistemologist, normative and descriptive attitudes in epistemology and how they help or hinder leading dialogue between philosophers and scientists.
认识论和科学哲学应该转向经验事实吗?
参与现代认识论经验主义讨论的Vladimir N. Porus, Nataliya I. Kuznetsova, Zhan K. Zagidullin, Vladislav a . Lektorsky对彼此的立场进行了评论,指出了他们的辩护中的优缺点,对一些问题达成了一致,指出了他们立场的基本论点和论点,并为所讨论的问题的进一步发展探索了前景。讨论提出了与现代认识论和科学哲学发展前景相关的主题,包括经验事实和经验在研究现代科学知识中的作用,认识论的工具和概念装置的发展问题,认识论中的规范和描述性态度,以及它们如何帮助或阻碍哲学家和科学家之间的主要对话。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信