EpistĒmĒ vs科学

Q4 Arts and Humanities
Konstantinos G. PAPAGEORGIOU, Demetrios E. LEKKAS
{"title":"EpistĒmĒ vs科学","authors":"Konstantinos G. PAPAGEORGIOU, Demetrios E. LEKKAS","doi":"10.19090/arhe.2021.35.279-312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Is “science” the corresponding concept of its Greek progenitor, epistēmē? Traditionally, they were thought of as identical concepts. They are not, in more than one way, and the reader is called to evaluate them not based on their chronological order but on the specific systemic characteristics presented here. The crucial difference between the epistemonic (from epistēmē) method and the scientific method will also be presented. One of the main differences that will be discussed is related to logic, both as a concept and as a theory. What the authors present here is by no means a synthesis of past ideas; we do acknowledge that some similar ideas might have appeared in the past but never in the form presented here or within the system proposed in what follows. This work is not about who did not say whatever we propose or who might have some similar thoughts within some irrelevant context. All ideas here stem from original work done solely by us and the ensuing system is unique and of utmost important being also an external critique – the only truly external critique – to the institution of modern science and to the grave inconsistencies “scientists” cannot (for whatever reason) notice in it anymore.","PeriodicalId":38340,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophy ARHE","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EPISTĒMĒ VS SCIENCE\",\"authors\":\"Konstantinos G. PAPAGEORGIOU, Demetrios E. LEKKAS\",\"doi\":\"10.19090/arhe.2021.35.279-312\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Is “science” the corresponding concept of its Greek progenitor, epistēmē? Traditionally, they were thought of as identical concepts. They are not, in more than one way, and the reader is called to evaluate them not based on their chronological order but on the specific systemic characteristics presented here. The crucial difference between the epistemonic (from epistēmē) method and the scientific method will also be presented. One of the main differences that will be discussed is related to logic, both as a concept and as a theory. What the authors present here is by no means a synthesis of past ideas; we do acknowledge that some similar ideas might have appeared in the past but never in the form presented here or within the system proposed in what follows. This work is not about who did not say whatever we propose or who might have some similar thoughts within some irrelevant context. All ideas here stem from original work done solely by us and the ensuing system is unique and of utmost important being also an external critique – the only truly external critique – to the institution of modern science and to the grave inconsistencies “scientists” cannot (for whatever reason) notice in it anymore.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38340,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Philosophy ARHE\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Philosophy ARHE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19090/arhe.2021.35.279-312\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Philosophy ARHE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19090/arhe.2021.35.279-312","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

“科学”是其希腊祖先的对应概念吗?传统上,它们被认为是相同的概念。从不止一个方面来说,它们不是,读者被要求不是根据它们的时间顺序,而是根据这里呈现的具体系统特征来评估它们。还将介绍认识论方法和科学方法之间的关键区别。将要讨论的主要差异之一与逻辑有关,无论是作为一个概念还是作为一个理论。作者在这里所呈现的绝不是对过去思想的综合;我们承认,一些类似的想法可能在过去出现过,但从未以本文所述的形式出现,也从未在下文提出的系统中出现。这项工作不是关于谁没有说出我们的建议,或者谁可能在一些无关的背景下有类似的想法。这里的所有想法都源于我们独自完成的原创工作,随之而来的系统是独特的,最重要的是,它也是对现代科学制度的外部批判——唯一真正的外部批判,以及“科学家”(无论出于何种原因)再也无法注意到的严重矛盾。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
EPISTĒMĒ VS SCIENCE
Is “science” the corresponding concept of its Greek progenitor, epistēmē? Traditionally, they were thought of as identical concepts. They are not, in more than one way, and the reader is called to evaluate them not based on their chronological order but on the specific systemic characteristics presented here. The crucial difference between the epistemonic (from epistēmē) method and the scientific method will also be presented. One of the main differences that will be discussed is related to logic, both as a concept and as a theory. What the authors present here is by no means a synthesis of past ideas; we do acknowledge that some similar ideas might have appeared in the past but never in the form presented here or within the system proposed in what follows. This work is not about who did not say whatever we propose or who might have some similar thoughts within some irrelevant context. All ideas here stem from original work done solely by us and the ensuing system is unique and of utmost important being also an external critique – the only truly external critique – to the institution of modern science and to the grave inconsistencies “scientists” cannot (for whatever reason) notice in it anymore.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Philosophy ARHE
Journal of Philosophy ARHE Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
×
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