Unity of science: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:24, 15 August 2023

Revision as of 17:40, 12 November 2023

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}}

[[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 isforms baseda onbasis 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==