On the Neo-Empiricist Thesis and Historicity of Science: Enriques and Neurath

IF 0.9 4区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Mirella Fortino
{"title":"On the Neo-Empiricist Thesis and Historicity of Science: Enriques and Neurath","authors":"Mirella Fortino","doi":"10.1007/s10699-024-09965-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this article, which testifies the European dimension of Federigo Enriques, an essential question is raised: is it conceivable to admit a radical antithesis between logical empiricism or neo-empiricism and the Enriquesian view of scientific thought? This paper therefore analyses the relationship between Enriques’ conception of science and that of Otto Neurath, one of the main representatives of neo-empiricism. While the interest towards empiricism in Enriques’ conception of the scientific knowledge is emphasised, it cannot be denied that the relationship of Enriques’ epistemology to the scientific idea of the world appears problematic. However, elements of convergence between Neurath and Enriques are discernible above all in the neo-empiricist principle of verification, in the idea of the unity of science and in the recognition by both of the historical nature of the scientific enterprise. In particular, the comparison is emphasised between Neurath’s idea of the encyclopaedia and Enriques’ rationalism, that highlights how, on closer inspection, Neurath’s critical view is not a true antithesis of the historical perspective of science.</p>","PeriodicalId":55146,"journal":{"name":"Foundations of Science","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foundations of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-024-09965-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, which testifies the European dimension of Federigo Enriques, an essential question is raised: is it conceivable to admit a radical antithesis between logical empiricism or neo-empiricism and the Enriquesian view of scientific thought? This paper therefore analyses the relationship between Enriques’ conception of science and that of Otto Neurath, one of the main representatives of neo-empiricism. While the interest towards empiricism in Enriques’ conception of the scientific knowledge is emphasised, it cannot be denied that the relationship of Enriques’ epistemology to the scientific idea of the world appears problematic. However, elements of convergence between Neurath and Enriques are discernible above all in the neo-empiricist principle of verification, in the idea of the unity of science and in the recognition by both of the historical nature of the scientific enterprise. In particular, the comparison is emphasised between Neurath’s idea of the encyclopaedia and Enriques’ rationalism, that highlights how, on closer inspection, Neurath’s critical view is not a true antithesis of the historical perspective of science.

论新经验主义命题与科学的历史性:恩里克与纽赖特
在这篇证明了费德里戈·恩里克的欧洲维度的文章中,提出了一个重要的问题:在逻辑经验主义或新经验主义与恩里克的科学思想观点之间,是否可以想象到一种激进的对立?因此,本文分析了恩里克的科学观与新经验主义的主要代表人物之一奥托·纽赖特的科学观之间的关系。虽然恩里克的科学知识概念对经验主义的兴趣得到了强调,但不可否认的是,恩里克的认识论与世界的科学观念之间的关系似乎存在问题。然而,纽赖特和恩里克之间的趋同的因素,首先是在新经验主义的验证原则,在科学的统一性的观念,以及在科学事业的历史性质的认识中可以看出。特别地,本文强调了纽赖特的百科全书思想与恩里克的理性主义之间的比较,这表明,在更仔细的观察中,纽赖特的批判观点并不是科学历史观点的真正对立面。
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
Foundations of Science
Foundations of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: Foundations of Science focuses on methodological and philosophical topics of foundational significance concerning the structure and the growth of science. It serves as a forum for exchange of views and ideas among working scientists and theorists of science and it seeks to promote interdisciplinary cooperation. Since the various scientific disciplines have become so specialized and inaccessible to workers in different areas of science, one of the goals of the journal is to present the foundational issues of science in a way that is free from unnecessary technicalities yet faithful to the scientific content. The aim of the journal is not simply to identify and highlight foundational issues and problems, but to suggest constructive solutions to the problems. The editors of the journal admit that various sciences have approaches and methods that are peculiar to those individual sciences. However, they hold the view that important truths can be discovered about and by the sciences and that truths transcend cultural and political contexts. Although properly conducted historical and sociological inquiries can explain some aspects of the scientific enterprise, the editors believe that the central foundational questions of contemporary science can be posed and answered without recourse to sociological or historical methods.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信