激发思想实验哲学史

M. Stuart, Yiftach Fehige
{"title":"激发思想实验哲学史","authors":"M. Stuart, Yiftach Fehige","doi":"10.1086/712940","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The literature on thought experiments has been steadily expanding since 1986. And yet, it appears that several aspects of the philosophical conversation have recently stalled. We claim that the current philosophical literature has much to gain by a reappraisal of its origins: by identifying the historical contingencies that caused the contemporary discussion to take the shape it has, we will be in a better position to entertain other directions the current debate could go, identify and eliminate mistaken dogma, and revive forgotten insights. This special issue of HOPOS is an attempt to start such a conversation, and we hope it might inspire similar pursuits in the history of the philosophy of other scientific methods like modeling, experiment, and computer simulation.","PeriodicalId":42878,"journal":{"name":"HOPOS-The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science","volume":"272 1","pages":"212 - 221"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Motivating the History of the Philosophy of Thought Experiments\",\"authors\":\"M. Stuart, Yiftach Fehige\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/712940\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The literature on thought experiments has been steadily expanding since 1986. And yet, it appears that several aspects of the philosophical conversation have recently stalled. We claim that the current philosophical literature has much to gain by a reappraisal of its origins: by identifying the historical contingencies that caused the contemporary discussion to take the shape it has, we will be in a better position to entertain other directions the current debate could go, identify and eliminate mistaken dogma, and revive forgotten insights. This special issue of HOPOS is an attempt to start such a conversation, and we hope it might inspire similar pursuits in the history of the philosophy of other scientific methods like modeling, experiment, and computer simulation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42878,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"HOPOS-The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science\",\"volume\":\"272 1\",\"pages\":\"212 - 221\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"HOPOS-The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/712940\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HOPOS-The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/712940","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自1986年以来,关于思维实验的文献一直在稳步增长。然而,这种哲学对话的几个方面最近似乎陷入了停滞。我们认为,当前的哲学文献可以通过重新评估其起源而获益良多:通过识别导致当代讨论呈现当前形式的历史偶然事件,我们将处于更好的位置,以考虑当前辩论可能走向的其他方向,识别和消除错误的教条,并恢复被遗忘的见解。本期《HOPOS》特刊试图开启这样一场对话,我们希望它能在建模、实验和计算机模拟等其他科学方法的哲学史上激发类似的追求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Motivating the History of the Philosophy of Thought Experiments
The literature on thought experiments has been steadily expanding since 1986. And yet, it appears that several aspects of the philosophical conversation have recently stalled. We claim that the current philosophical literature has much to gain by a reappraisal of its origins: by identifying the historical contingencies that caused the contemporary discussion to take the shape it has, we will be in a better position to entertain other directions the current debate could go, identify and eliminate mistaken dogma, and revive forgotten insights. This special issue of HOPOS is an attempt to start such a conversation, and we hope it might inspire similar pursuits in the history of the philosophy of other scientific methods like modeling, experiment, and computer simulation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Conceptual Analysis and the Analytic Method in Kant’s Prize Essay Johann Nikolaus Tetens (1736-1807) and the Idea of Phoneme. A Chapter in the History of Linguistic Thought What Conceptual Engineering Can Learn From The History of Philosophy of Science: Healthy Externalism and Metasemantic Plasticity Sellars, Analyticity, and a Dynamic Picture of Language Special Section Introduction
×
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