Introduction. Ian Hacking and the Historical Reason of the Sciences

IF 0.2 0 PHILOSOPHY Philosophical Inquiries Pub Date : 2021-02-25 DOI:10.4454/PHILINQ.V9I1.361
Matteo Vagelli, Marica Setaro
{"title":"Introduction. Ian Hacking and the Historical Reason of the Sciences","authors":"Matteo Vagelli, Marica Setaro","doi":"10.4454/PHILINQ.V9I1.361","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ian Hacking is among the few that have successfully undermined the Analytic/Continental divide, by working on the “trading zones” between these two strands, and forged their conceptual instruments by drawing these latter from different sources and applying them to widely diverse philosophical debates, across natural, social and medical sciences: debates ranging from the problem of induction and proofs and deduction in mathematics to the theories of meaning and truth as well as to the controversy between realism and constructivism in natural and social sciences. \nAlbeit well-known and widely inspiring, Hacking is still rarely studied, and his wide-ranging production has not yet received an accurate and comprehensive analysis. This Focus aims to precisely fill this gap, by providing one of the first extensive studies dedicated to Hacking’s philosophy. It does not wish, however, to cover all the philosophical areas to which he has possibly contributed, neither does it aim, more generally, to provide a commentary nor an exegesis of his works. By collecting papers by both established and young scholars, this Focus rather intends to explore why Hacking has so largely in- fluenced the field of history and philosophy of science. Analyzing Hacking’s contribution to the 20th-century attempts to bring together history and philosophy of science as well as discussing his arguments on scientific stability, the Focus tackles, from different perspectives, the question of the historicity of reason. Without aspiring to definitive answers, this Focus wishes to open up lines of further research on Hacking’s works as well as along their path.","PeriodicalId":41386,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Inquiries","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Inquiries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4454/PHILINQ.V9I1.361","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ian Hacking is among the few that have successfully undermined the Analytic/Continental divide, by working on the “trading zones” between these two strands, and forged their conceptual instruments by drawing these latter from different sources and applying them to widely diverse philosophical debates, across natural, social and medical sciences: debates ranging from the problem of induction and proofs and deduction in mathematics to the theories of meaning and truth as well as to the controversy between realism and constructivism in natural and social sciences. Albeit well-known and widely inspiring, Hacking is still rarely studied, and his wide-ranging production has not yet received an accurate and comprehensive analysis. This Focus aims to precisely fill this gap, by providing one of the first extensive studies dedicated to Hacking’s philosophy. It does not wish, however, to cover all the philosophical areas to which he has possibly contributed, neither does it aim, more generally, to provide a commentary nor an exegesis of his works. By collecting papers by both established and young scholars, this Focus rather intends to explore why Hacking has so largely in- fluenced the field of history and philosophy of science. Analyzing Hacking’s contribution to the 20th-century attempts to bring together history and philosophy of science as well as discussing his arguments on scientific stability, the Focus tackles, from different perspectives, the question of the historicity of reason. Without aspiring to definitive answers, this Focus wishes to open up lines of further research on Hacking’s works as well as along their path.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
介绍。伊恩·哈金与科学的历史原因
伊恩·哈金是少数几个成功地破坏了分析/大陆分裂的人之一,他研究了这两股之间的“贸易区”,并通过从不同的来源汲取后者,并将其应用于自然科学、社会科学和医学领域广泛不同的哲学辩论,从而形成了他们的概念工具:辩论范围从数学中的归纳法、证明和演绎问题到意义和真理的理论,以及自然科学和社会科学中现实主义和建构主义之间的争论。尽管哈金广为人知,鼓舞人心,但很少有人对他进行研究,他涉及面很广的作品还没有得到准确而全面的分析。这本《焦点》旨在填补这一空白,提供第一个专门研究哈金哲学的广泛研究之一。它不希望,然而,涵盖所有的哲学领域,他可能有贡献,也不是它的目的,更一般地说,提供一个评论或对他的作品的注释。通过收集既有学者也有年轻学者的论文,本《焦点》旨在探讨为什么哈金学对历史和科学哲学领域有如此大的影响。《焦点》分析了哈金对20世纪试图将历史和科学哲学结合起来的贡献,并讨论了他关于科学稳定性的论点,从不同的角度探讨了理性的历史性问题。虽然不希望得到明确的答案,但这篇文章希望为进一步研究哈金的作品以及他们的道路开辟一条道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Commentary to B. William’s French introduction to "Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy" Sonic obstacles and conceptual nostalgia: Preliminary considerations on musical conceptualism and contemporary art Intergenerational aesthetics: A future-oriented approach to aesthetic theory and practice Presentism and the Pain of the Past: A Reply to Orilia “Who inspires who?” Aesthetics in front of AI art
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1