Abstract
There are two basic views on the development and change of scientific theories in the history and philosophy of science. The first of these is that scientific theories progress through revolutions, and the second is that scientific theories constantly advance in a cumulative manner. When it comes to these two distinctions, the prevailing opinion is that there are important differences especially between medieval thought and early modern science. The judgment that medieval thought and early modern science were different in terms of both type and content formed the basic view of the 20th century philosophy of science, and it was claimed that a "scientific revolution" took place in the 17th century, breaking away from medieval thought. On the other hand, contrary to this view, Pierre Duhem [1861-1916] had, above all, an explanation of scientific change and development in the history of science, in which scientific theories develop in small, successive steps. In the historical development of science, nothing happened from scratch or through revolution. Through his monumental ten-volume Le Systeme du monde (1913–59), Duhem argued forcefully that medieval Catholic institutions and thinkers played an important role in the emergence of modern Western science. He argued that this period was not a gap between Classical Antiquity and the 17th century, but rather an indispensable period of long and slow development leading to the threshold of modern science. There were rational foundations for Duhem's assertion of the continuity thesis. On the one hand, Duhem based his claim that there was continuity in the historical development of science with the structure of scientific theories he put forward in the philosophy of science. His definition of physical theories as "natural classification" served as the glue connecting the history of science and the philosophy of science, and he explained the foundations of continuity in science with this concept. On the other hand, he would find the meaning and purpose of “why a physicist should follow a physical theory” with the continuity thesis and the term “natural classification”.
References
- Ariew, R. and Barker, P., “Duhem And Continuity In The History Of Science”, Revue Internationale de Philosophie, No 46(182), (1892): 323-343. Erişim Adresi ve Tarihi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23949417 (14 Mart 2024)
- Bhakthavatsalam, S., “The rationale behind Pierre Duhem’s natural classification”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, No 51, (2015): 11-21.
- Dion, S. M., “Pierre Duhem and the inconsistency between instrumentalism and natural classification”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, No 44, (2012): 12-19.
- Duhem, P., Origins of Statics, Translated by G. F. Leneaux et al. Dordrecht, Vol. 1, Kluwer: 1991 (Originally published by Hermann, Paris:1906).
- Duhem, P., The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Translated by P. Weiner. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954 (originally pressed in 1962).
- Duhem, P., “Quelques réflexions au sujet des théories physiques”, Revue des questions scientifiques, XXXI, 2e série, t. I, (1892):139-177; in Prémices philosophiques, éd. par S. Jaki, Leiden: Brill, (1987): 1-39.
- Duhem, P., ‘‘Physique et metaphysique,’’ Revue des questions scientifiques, No 34(3), 1893, (reprinted in Duhem, Premisses philosophiques 95); (translated by Thomas Lepeltier, in “Was Pierre Duhem a Precursor of Postmodernism?”, p. 29).
- Duhem, Pierre. “Physics and Metaphysics”, In Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science, edited and translated by Roger Ariew and Peter Barker, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. (1996): 29-49.
- Schuster, John A., Journal of Judaism and Civilization, Pierre Duhem’s History and Philosophy of Science in Contemporary Perspective, No 12 (2017): 21-65. Erişim Adresi ve Tarihi: https://www.academia.edu/42975102/Pierre_Duhems_History_and_Philosophy_of_Science_in_Contemporary_Perspective_Journal_of_Judaism_and_Civilization_12_2017_21_65_Pierre_Duhems_History_and_Philosophy_of_Science_in_Contemporary_Perspective (14 Mart 2024).
- Vilchis, R. M., “The Distinction Between Physics and Metaphysics in Duhem’s Philosophy”, Pierre Duhem and Ernst Mach: Science and Philosophy, (2018): 85-114. Erişim Adresi ve Tarihi:https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26405919.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Aa33a74cac440db80f513a46659747183&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1 (14 Mart 2024).
Abstract
Bilim tarihi ve felsefesinde bilimsel teorilerin gelişimi ve değişimine dair iki temel görüş bulunmaktadır. Bunlardan birincisi bilimsel teorilerin devrimlerle, ikincisi ise bilimsel teorilerin kümülatif bir şekilde sürekli ilerlediğidir. Bu iki ayrım söz konusu olduğunda özellikle orta çağ düşüncesi ve erken modern bilim arasında önemli ayrılıkların yer aldığı görüşü hakimdir. Orta çağ düşüncesi ile erken modern bilimin hem tür hem de içerik bakımından farklı olduğu yargısı 20. yüzyıl bilim felsefesinin temel görüşünü oluşturmuş, 17. yüzyılda orta çağ düşüncesinden kopup, bir “bilimsel devrim” yaşandığı öne sürülmüştür. Diğer taraftan bu görüşün aksine Pierre Duhem [1861-1916] bilim tarihinde, her şeyden önce, bilimsel teorilerin küçük, birbirini izleyen adımlarla geliştiği bilimsel değişim ve gelişmenin bir açıklamasını yapmıştı. Bilimin tarihsel gelişiminde hiçbir şey yeni baştan ya da devrim yoluyla gerçekleşmemişti. Duhem, on ciltlik anıtsal Le Systeme du monde (1913-59) adlı eseri aracılığıyla, Orta Çağ Katolik kurumlarının ve düşünürlerinin modern Batı biliminin ortaya çıkışında önemli bir rol oynadıklarını güçlü bir şekilde savunmuştu. Bu dönemin Klasik Antik Çağ ile 17. yüzyıl arasında bir boşluk olmadığını, daha ziyade modern bilimin eşiğine giden vazgeçilmez, uzun ve yavaş ilerleyen bir gelişme dönemi olduğunu ortaya sürmüştü. Duhem’in süreklilik tezini öne sürmesinin rasyonel temelleri bulunmaktaydı. Duhem bir taraftan, bilimin tarihsel gelişiminde süreklilik olduğuna ilişkin iddiasını bilim felsefesinde ortaya koyduğu bilimsel teorilerin yapısıyla temellendirmişti. Onun fiziksel teorileri “doğal sınıflandırma” olarak tanımlaması bilim tarihiyle bilim felsefesini birbirine bağlayan bir tutkal görevi görmüş ve bilimde sürekliliğin temellerini bu kavramla açıklamıştı. Diğer taraftan ise süreklilik teziyle ve “doğal sınıflandırma” terimiyle bir fizikçinin “neden bir fiziksel teoriyi takip etmesi gerektiğini”nin anlamını ve amacını bulacaktı.
References
- Ariew, R. and Barker, P., “Duhem And Continuity In The History Of Science”, Revue Internationale de Philosophie, No 46(182), (1892): 323-343. Erişim Adresi ve Tarihi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23949417 (14 Mart 2024)
- Bhakthavatsalam, S., “The rationale behind Pierre Duhem’s natural classification”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, No 51, (2015): 11-21.
- Dion, S. M., “Pierre Duhem and the inconsistency between instrumentalism and natural classification”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, No 44, (2012): 12-19.
- Duhem, P., Origins of Statics, Translated by G. F. Leneaux et al. Dordrecht, Vol. 1, Kluwer: 1991 (Originally published by Hermann, Paris:1906).
- Duhem, P., The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Translated by P. Weiner. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954 (originally pressed in 1962).
- Duhem, P., “Quelques réflexions au sujet des théories physiques”, Revue des questions scientifiques, XXXI, 2e série, t. I, (1892):139-177; in Prémices philosophiques, éd. par S. Jaki, Leiden: Brill, (1987): 1-39.
- Duhem, P., ‘‘Physique et metaphysique,’’ Revue des questions scientifiques, No 34(3), 1893, (reprinted in Duhem, Premisses philosophiques 95); (translated by Thomas Lepeltier, in “Was Pierre Duhem a Precursor of Postmodernism?”, p. 29).
- Duhem, Pierre. “Physics and Metaphysics”, In Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science, edited and translated by Roger Ariew and Peter Barker, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. (1996): 29-49.
- Schuster, John A., Journal of Judaism and Civilization, Pierre Duhem’s History and Philosophy of Science in Contemporary Perspective, No 12 (2017): 21-65. Erişim Adresi ve Tarihi: https://www.academia.edu/42975102/Pierre_Duhems_History_and_Philosophy_of_Science_in_Contemporary_Perspective_Journal_of_Judaism_and_Civilization_12_2017_21_65_Pierre_Duhems_History_and_Philosophy_of_Science_in_Contemporary_Perspective (14 Mart 2024).
- Vilchis, R. M., “The Distinction Between Physics and Metaphysics in Duhem’s Philosophy”, Pierre Duhem and Ernst Mach: Science and Philosophy, (2018): 85-114. Erişim Adresi ve Tarihi:https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26405919.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Aa33a74cac440db80f513a46659747183&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1 (14 Mart 2024).
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Philosophy of Science |
| Journal Section | Research Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | May 7, 2024 |
| Submission Date | January 20, 2024 |
| Acceptance Date | March 16, 2024 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2024 Issue: 37 |
- Article Files
Starting from 2024, our journal will be published in 3 issues as two regular and one special issues. These issues will be published In May (regular issue), September (special issue) and December (regular issue).
Acceptance of articles for our special issue and our regular issue in December will begin on March 15.
Only articles within the scope of the file will be included in our special issue.
Thank you for your attention.