Unity of science: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs)
Add: url, s2cid. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Corvus florensis | #UCB_webform 1575/1746
fixed
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
Early versions of the unity of science thesis can be found in [[ancient Greek philosophers]] such as [[Aristotle]],{{sfn|Cat|2017}}{{sfn|Wilson|2000}} and in the later history of [[Western philosophy]].{{sfn|Cat|2017}} For example, in the first half of the 20th century the thesis was associated with the unity of science movement led by [[Otto Neurath]],{{sfn|Symons|Pombo|Torres|2011}} and in the second half of the century the thesis was advocated by [[Ludwig von Bertalanffy]] in "General System Theory: A New Approach to Unity of Science" (1951){{sfn|Bertalanffy|1951}} and by [[Paul Oppenheim]] and [[Hilary Putnam]] in "Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis" (1958).{{sfn|Oppenheim|Putnam|1958}} It has been opposed by [[Jerry Fodor]] in "Special Sciences (Or: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis)" (1974),{{sfn|Fodor|1974}} by [[Paul Feyerabend]] in ''Against Method'' (1975) and later works,{{sfn|Feyerabend|1993}}{{sfn|Feyerabend|2011}} and by [[John Dupré]] in "The Disunity of Science" (1983){{sfn|Dupré|1983}} and ''The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science'' (1993).{{sfn|Dupré|1993}}
Early versions of the unity of science thesis can be found in [[ancient Greek philosophers]] such as [[Aristotle]],{{sfn|Cat|2017}}{{sfn|Wilson|2000}} and in the later history of [[Western philosophy]].{{sfn|Cat|2017}} For example, in the first half of the 20th century the thesis was associated with the unity of science movement led by [[Otto Neurath]],{{sfn|Symons|Pombo|Torres|2011}} and in the second half of the century the thesis was advocated by [[Ludwig von Bertalanffy]] in "General System Theory: A New Approach to Unity of Science" (1951){{sfn|Bertalanffy|1951}} and by [[Paul Oppenheim]] and [[Hilary Putnam]] in "Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis" (1958).{{sfn|Oppenheim|Putnam|1958}} It has been opposed by [[Jerry Fodor]] in "Special Sciences (Or: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis)" (1974),{{sfn|Fodor|1974}} by [[Paul Feyerabend]] in ''Against Method'' (1975) and later works,{{sfn|Feyerabend|1993}}{{sfn|Feyerabend|2011}} and by [[John Dupré]] in "The Disunity of Science" (1983){{sfn|Dupré|1983}} and ''The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science'' (1993).{{sfn|Dupré|1993}}


[[Jean Piaget]] suggested, in his 1918 book ''Recherche''{{sfn|Piaget|1918}} and later books, that the unity of science can be considered in terms of a circle of the sciences, where logic is the foundation for mathematics, which is the foundation for mechanics and physics, and physics is the foundation for chemistry, which is the foundation for biology, which is the foundation for sociology, the moral sciences, psychology, and the theory of knowledge, and the theory of knowledge is based on logic, completing the circle,{{sfn|Braun|Baribeau|1984}} without implying that any science could be [[Reductionism|reduced]] to any other.{{sfn|Kitchener|1981}}
[[Jean Piaget]] suggested, in his 1918 book ''Recherche''{{sfn|Piaget|1918}} and later books, that the unity of science can be considered in terms of a circle of the sciences, where logic is the foundation for mathematics, which is the foundation for mechanics and physics, and physics is the foundation for chemistry, which is the foundation for biology, which is the foundation for sociology, the moral sciences, psychology, and the theory of knowledge, and the theory of knowledge forms a basis for logic, completing the circle,{{sfn|Braun|Baribeau|1984}} without implying that any science could be [[Reductionism|reduced]] to any other.{{sfn|Kitchener|1981}}


==See also==
==See also==
Line 14: Line 14:
* [[Stanford School]]
* [[Stanford School]]
* [[Systems theory]]
* [[Systems theory]]
* [[Tektology]]
* [[The central science]]
* [[The central science]]
* [[Unified Science]]
* [[Unified Science]]
Line 27: Line 28:
* {{cite journal |last1=Braun |first1=Claude M. J. |last2=Baribeau |first2=Jacinthe M. C. |date=Summer 1984 |title=The classification of psychology among the sciences from Francis Bacon to Boniface Kedrov |journal=[[Journal of Mind and Behavior]] |volume=5 |issue=3 |pages=245–259 (252–254) |jstor=43853037 |url=https://www.academia.edu/27010916}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Braun |first1=Claude M. J. |last2=Baribeau |first2=Jacinthe M. C. |date=Summer 1984 |title=The classification of psychology among the sciences from Francis Bacon to Boniface Kedrov |journal=[[Journal of Mind and Behavior]] |volume=5 |issue=3 |pages=245–259 (252–254) |jstor=43853037 |url=https://www.academia.edu/27010916}}
* {{cite SEP |last=Cat |first=Jordi |date=2017 |url-id=scientific-unity |title=The unity of science |edition=Fall 2017}}
* {{cite SEP |last=Cat |first=Jordi |date=2017 |url-id=scientific-unity |title=The unity of science |edition=Fall 2017}}
* {{cite journal |last=Dupré |first=John |author-link=John Dupré |date=July 1983 |title=The disunity of science |journal=[[Mind (journal)|Mind]] |volume=92 |issue=367 |pages=321–346 |jstor=2253810 |doi=10.1093/mind/XCII.367.321}}
* {{cite journal |last=Dupré |first=John |author-link=John Dupré |date=July 1983 |title=The disunity of science |journal=[[Mind (journal)|Mind]] |volume=92 |issue=367 |pages=321–346 |jstor=2253810 |doi=10.1093/mind/XCII.367.321|doi-access=free }}
* {{cite book |last=Dupré |first=John |date=1993 |title=The disorder of things: metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |isbn=0674212606 |oclc=25746325 |url=https://archive.org/details/disorderofthings0000dupr |url-access=registration}}
* {{cite book |last=Dupré |first=John |date=1993 |title=The disorder of things: metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |isbn=0674212606 |oclc=25746325 |url=https://archive.org/details/disorderofthings0000dupr |url-access=registration}}
* {{cite book |last=Feyerabend |first=Paul |author-link=Paul Feyerabend |date=1993 |orig-year=1974 |title=Against method |edition=3rd |location=London; New York |publisher=[[Verso Books|Verso]] |isbn=086091481X |oclc=29026104 |url=https://archive.org/details/againstmethod0000feye |url-access=registration}}
* {{cite book |last=Feyerabend |first=Paul |author-link=Paul Feyerabend |date=1993 |orig-year=1974 |title=Against method |edition=3rd |location=London; New York |publisher=[[Verso Books|Verso]] |isbn=086091481X |oclc=29026104 |url=https://archive.org/details/againstmethod0000feye |url-access=registration}}
* {{cite book |last=Feyerabend |first=Paul |date=2011 |chapter=The disunity of science |title=The tyranny of science |location=Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA |publisher=[[Polity Press]] |pages=[https://archive.org/details/tyrannyofscience0000feye/page/32 32–63] |isbn=978-0745651897 |oclc=668946683 |url=https://archive.org/details/tyrannyofscience0000feye |url-access=registration |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/tyrannyofscience0000feye/page/32 |chapter-url-access=registration}}
* {{cite book |last=Feyerabend |first=Paul |date=2011 |chapter=The disunity of science |title=The tyranny of science |location=Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA |publisher=[[Polity Press]] |pages=[https://archive.org/details/tyrannyofscience0000feye/page/32 32–63] |isbn=978-0745651897 |oclc=668946683 |url=https://archive.org/details/tyrannyofscience0000feye |url-access=registration |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/tyrannyofscience0000feye/page/32 |chapter-url-access=registration}}
* {{cite journal |last=Fodor |first=Jerry A. |author-link=Jerry Fodor |date=October 1974 |title=Special sciences (or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis) |journal=[[Synthese]] |volume=28 |issue=2 |pages=97–115 |doi=10.1007/BF00485230 |jstor=20114958 |s2cid=46979938}} Reprinted in {{harvnb|Boyd|Gasper|Trout|1991}}.
* {{cite journal |last=Fodor |first=Jerry A. |author-link=Jerry Fodor |date=October 1974 |title=Special sciences (or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis) |journal=[[Synthese]] |volume=28 |issue=2 |pages=97–115 |doi=10.1007/BF00485230 |jstor=20114958 |s2cid=46979938|url=https://philarchive.org/rec/FODSSO-2 }} Reprinted in {{harvnb|Boyd|Gasper|Trout|1991}}.
* {{cite journal |last=Kitchener |first=Richard F. |date=September 1981 |title=The nature and scope of genetic epistemology |journal=[[Philosophy of Science (journal)|Philosophy of Science]] |volume=48 |issue=3 |pages=400–415 (413) |jstor=186987 |doi=10.1086/289007 |s2cid=144785292 |quote=Nowhere does Piaget suggest that sociology can be reduced to psychology, but instead refers to 'psycho-sociology'.}}
* {{cite journal |last=Kitchener |first=Richard F. |date=September 1981 |title=The nature and scope of genetic epistemology |journal=[[Philosophy of Science (journal)|Philosophy of Science]] |volume=48 |issue=3 |pages=400–415 (413) |jstor=186987 |doi=10.1086/289007 |s2cid=144785292 |quote=Nowhere does Piaget suggest that sociology can be reduced to psychology, but instead refers to 'psycho-sociology'.}}
* {{cite book |last1=Oppenheim |first1=Paul |author-link1=Paul Oppenheim |last2=Putnam |first2=Hilary |author-link2=Hilary Putnam |date=1958 |chapter=Unity of science as a working hypothesis |editor-last=Feigl |editor-first=Herbert |editor-link=Herbert Feigl |title=Concepts, theories and the mind–body problem |series=Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science |volume=2 |location=Minneapolis |publisher=[[University of Minnesota Press]] |pages=3–36 |hdl=11299/184622 |isbn=9780816601585 |oclc=2669746 |chapter-url=https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/184622}} Reprinted in {{harvnb|Boyd|Gasper|Trout|1991}}.
* {{cite book |last1=Oppenheim |first1=Paul |author-link1=Paul Oppenheim |last2=Putnam |first2=Hilary |author-link2=Hilary Putnam |date=1958 |chapter=Unity of science as a working hypothesis |editor-last=Feigl |editor-first=Herbert |editor-link=Herbert Feigl |title=Concepts, theories and the mind–body problem |series=Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science |volume=2 |location=Minneapolis |publisher=[[University of Minnesota Press]] |pages=3–36 |hdl=11299/184622 |isbn=9780816601585 |oclc=2669746 |chapter-url=https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/184622}} Reprinted in {{harvnb|Boyd|Gasper|Trout|1991}}.

Latest revision as of 17:40, 12 November 2023

The unity of science is a thesis in philosophy of science that says that all the sciences form a unified whole. The variants of the thesis can be classified as ontological (giving a unified account of the structure of reality) and/or as epistemic/pragmatic (giving a unified account of how the activities and products of science work).[1] There are also philosophers who emphasize the disunity of science, which does not necessarily imply that there could be no unity in some sense but does emphasize pluralism in the ontology and/or practice of science.[1]

Early versions of the unity of science thesis can be found in ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle,[2][3] and in the later history of Western philosophy.[2] For example, in the first half of the 20th century the thesis was associated with the unity of science movement led by Otto Neurath,[4] and in the second half of the century the thesis was advocated by Ludwig von Bertalanffy in "General System Theory: A New Approach to Unity of Science" (1951)[5] and by Paul Oppenheim and Hilary Putnam in "Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis" (1958).[6] It has been opposed by Jerry Fodor in "Special Sciences (Or: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis)" (1974),[7] by Paul Feyerabend in Against Method (1975) and later works,[8][9] and by John Dupré in "The Disunity of Science" (1983)[10] and The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science (1993).[11]

Jean Piaget suggested, in his 1918 book Recherche[12] and later books, that the unity of science can be considered in terms of a circle of the sciences, where logic is the foundation for mathematics, which is the foundation for mechanics and physics, and physics is the foundation for chemistry, which is the foundation for biology, which is the foundation for sociology, the moral sciences, psychology, and the theory of knowledge, and the theory of knowledge forms a basis for logic, completing the circle,[13] without implying that any science could be reduced to any other.[14]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]