Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.09798734 = product of:
  0.19597468 = sum of:
    0.17452341 = weight(_text_:john in 1783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17452341 = score(doc=1783,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.44139916 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.326189 = idf(docFreq=215, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06977331 = queryNorm
        0.39538682 = fieldWeight in 1783, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.326189 = idf(docFreq=215, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1783)
    0.021451265 = weight(_text_:und in 1783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021451265 = score(doc=1783,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15475015 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06977331 = queryNorm
        0.1386187 = fieldWeight in 1783, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1783)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The great dream of philosophers and scientists for millennia has been to give us a complete account of the order of things. A powerful articulation of such a dream in this century has been found in the idea of a unity of science. With this manifesto, John Dupre systematically attacks the ideal of scientific unity by showing how its underlying assumptions are at odds with the central conclusions of science itself. In its stead, the author gives us a metaphysics much more in keeping with what science tells us about the world. Elegantly written and compellingly argued, this provocative book will be important reading for all philosophers and scholars of science. Dupre's book is original, lucid and confident, without being eccentric, polemical or arrogant. It deserves close attention...Dupre insists that there is no general scientific method, process, or attitude...He pins down the notion of the unity of science as a form of scientism appropriate only to a Utopia or to totalitarianism. He notes that 'paradoxically, with the disunity of science comes a kind of unity of knowledge.' That is why, to my mind, this is just the kind of philosophical teaching that is needed to close the gap between the two cultures. -- John Ziman Nature The thesis of 'disorder' has revolutionary implications for the practice of science...[This book] should be read by every student of the subject as an antidote to current philosophical correctness, and it should indeed suggest to professionals that many of the fashionable empires of analytic philosophy as well as philosophy of science are not well-clothed. -- Mary Hesse International Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science

BK

30.02 (Philosophie und Theorie der Naturwissenschaften)

Classification

30.02 (Philosophie und Theorie der Naturwissenschaften)

0.010599195 = product of:
  0.04239678 = sum of:
    0.04239678 = weight(_text_:und in 501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04239678 = score(doc=501,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.15475015 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06977331 = queryNorm
        0.27396923 = fieldWeight in 501, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=501)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

"In Das offene Universum: Ein Argument für den Indeterminismus präsentiert Popper eine Kritik des 'wissenschaftlichen' und des metaphysischen Determinismus und argumentiert, daß die klassische Physik den Determinismus genauso wenig voraussetzt oder impliziert wie die Quantenphysik. Dennoch stellt er fest, daß der metaphysische Determinismus den Werken vieler zeitgenössischer Quantenphysiker immer noch zugrundeliegt, inklusive den Werken von Gegnern des Determinismus. Popper verfolgt die Rollen, die die subjektive Interpretation der Wahrscheinlichkeit in der Physik immer noch spielt, bis hin zu diesen metaphysischen deterministischen Voraussetzungen [.]. Der [.] Band tritt in seiner Abhandlung über den Determinismus für die Ansicht ein, daß unsere Rationalität, was die Voraussage des zukünftigen Wachstums des menschlichen Wissens anbelangt, begrenzt ist. Wenn es keine solche Grenze gäbe, wären ernsthafte Argumente sinnlos: und ihr Auftreten wäre eine Illusion.Popper argumentiert also, daß die menschliche Rationalität, was Kritik anbelangt, unbegrenzt ist, jedoch begrenzt, was ihre Voraussagekraft anbelangt; und er zeigt, daß die Unbegrenztheit und die Begrenztheit jede in ihrem Gebiet notwendig sind, damit es die menschliche Rationalität überhaupt geben kann." (Der Herausgeber im Nachwort).