Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T23:28:30.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Humanistic Significance of Science: Some Methodological Considerations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Enrico Cantore
Enrico Cantore*
Affiliation:
Fordham University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This essay discusses the problem of the two cultures. According to the author the problem arises because science is the source of a new way of conceiving reality and man, different from the mental conception entertained by nonscientific persons. The article suggests methodological guidelines for the philosopher interested in understanding the humanistic mentality of the scientists. The approach proposed is inductive-genetic. The aim is to help the philosopher explore science in its developmental becoming so that he may become aware of the reasons for the characteristic mentality of scientists as regards humanistic issues. The essay concludes with a discussion of the new perspectives disclosed to scientific-humanistic dialogue.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , September 1971 , pp. 395 - 412
Copyright
Copyright © 1971 by The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

This study has been partly supported by a grant from the American Philosophical Society.

References

[1] Bernard, C., Philosophie: Manuscrit Inedit, Boivin, Paris, 1937.Google Scholar
[2] Born, M., The Restless Universe (trans. W. M. Deans), Dover, New York, 1951.Google Scholar
[3] Born, M., Physics in My Generation, Pergamon, New York, 1956.Google Scholar
[4] Bridgman, P. W., “Introduction” to J. B. Stallo's The Concepts and Theories of Modem Physics, Harvard, Cambridge, 1960.Google Scholar
[5] Broglie, L. de, Physics and Microphysics (trans. M. Davidson), Grosset and Dunlap, New York, 1966.Google Scholar
[6] Buber, M., Between Man and Man (trans. R. G. Smith), Collins-Fontana, London, 1961.Google Scholar
[7] Cantore, E., “Genetical Understanding of Science: Some Considerations about Optics,” Archives Internationales d'Histoire des Sciences, vol. 19, 1966, pp. 333–363.Google Scholar
[8] Cantore, E., “Some Reflections on Man's unending Quest for Understanding,” Dialectica, vol. 22, 1968, pp. 132–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Cantore, E., Atomic Order: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Microphysics, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1969.Google Scholar
[10] Eddington, A., The Philosophy of Physical Science, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1958.Google Scholar
[11] Einstein, A., Ideas and Opinions, Crown, New York, 1954.Google Scholar
[12] Einstein, A., Lettres à Maurice Solovine, Gauthiers-Villars, Paris, 1956.Google Scholar
[13] Eiseley, L., The Unexpected Universe, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
[14] Galilei, G., “Letter to Grand Duchess Christina,” in Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (ed. Drake, S.), Doubleday Anchor, New York, 1957, pp. 175–216.Google Scholar
[15] Hanson, N. R., Patterns of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science, Cambridge University Press, London, 1958.Google Scholar
[16] Heisenberg, W., “Wolfgang Paulis philosophische Auffassungen,” Die Naturwissenschaften, vol. 46, 1959, p. 661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17] Heisenberg, W., Der Teil und das Ganze: Gespräche im Umkreis der Atomphysik, Piper, München, 1969.Google Scholar
[18] Jaeger, W., Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of His Development, Oxford University Press, London, 1962.Google Scholar
[19] Mach, E., The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of its Development (trans. T. J. McCormack), Open Court, 1960.Google Scholar
[20] Medawar, P. B., The Art of the Soluble, Methuen, London, 1967.Google Scholar
[21] Medawar, P. B., Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought, American Philosophical Association, Philadelphia, 1969.Google Scholar
[22] Nash, L. K., The Nature of the Natural Sciences, Little, Brown, Boston, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23] Piaget, J., Introduction a l'Epistemologie Genetique, Presses Universitaires de France, vol. I.Google Scholar
[24] Planck, M., Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers (trans. F. Gaynor), Philosophical Library, New York, 1949.Google Scholar
[25] Poincaré, H., Science and Method, Dover, New York, no date.Google Scholar
[26] Poincaré, H., Mathematics and Science: Last Essays (trans. J. W. Bolduc), Dover, New York, 1963.Google Scholar
[27] Polanyi, M., Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, Harper, New York, 1964.Google Scholar
[28] Reichenbach, H., “The Philosophical Significance of the Theory of Relativity,” in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (ed. Schilpp, P. A.), Harper, New York, 1959.Google Scholar
[29] Schiller, F. C. S., “Scientific Discovery and Logical Proof,” in Singer, C., Studies in the History and Method of Science, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1917, pp. 235–289.Google Scholar
[30] Simpson, G. G., “Biology and Ethics,” in Biology and Man, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, 1969, pp. 130–148.Google Scholar
[31] Snow, C. P., The Two Cultures: And a Second Look, Mentor, New York, 1963.Google Scholar
[32] Whewell, W., History of the Inductive Sciences, 1837.Google Scholar
[33] Whewell, W., Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences Founded upon Their History, 1840.Google Scholar
[34] Whewell, W., On the Philosophy of Discovery, 1860.Google Scholar
[35] Ziman, J. M., Public Knowledge: An Essay Concerning the Social Dimension of Science, Cambridge University Press, London, 1968.Google Scholar