E-LOGOS 2016, 23(2):10-26 | DOI: 10.18267/j.e-logos.433

W. W. BARTLEY: RECONSIDERING THE PROBLEM OF DEMARCATION BETWEEN SCIENCE AND METAPHYSICS

Vendula Kovářová
Katedra filozofie FF ZČU

Problém demarkace mezi vědou a metafyzikou byl v první polovině 20. století považován za centrální problém normativní filozofie vědy. W. W. Bartley ve svém textu z roku 1962 přesvědčivě ukázal, že dichotomie mezi vědou a metafyzikou (ne-vědou) není důležitá, jelikož neposkytuje žádné relevantní údaje o daném tvrzení (teorii). Otázku posunul do roviny hodnocení a akceptability teorií a představil vlastní kritérium "demarkace" mezi dobrou a špatnou teorií podle množství problémů, které řeší. V této studii bude představena Bartleyho argumentace v kontextech popperiánských diskuzí, Bartleyho kritika induktivismu a Popperovy falzifikace. Cílem tohoto textu je zejména kritická reakce na znovuotevření problému demarkace mezi vědou a pseudovědou v současné diskuzi a poukázání na již minimálně trojí (Bartley, Kuhn, Laudan) odmítnutí problému demarkace v minulosti. V závěru studie je nabídnuto řešení v souladu s Bartleyho koncepcí akceptability teorií.

Keywords: William W. Bartley; Karl R. Popper; Thomas S. Kuhn; demarkace; falzifikace; induktivismus.

In the first half of 20th century the problem of demarcation between science and metaphysics was considered as the central issue of normative philosophy of science. W. W. Bartley convincingly demonstrates in his text from 1962 that dichotomy between science and metaphysics (non-science) is not so important because it does not provide relevant data about certain assertion (theory). Bartley shifted the question to the level of evaluation and acceptability of theories and presented his own criterion of "demarcation" between a good and a bad theory depending on the number of problems it solves. This study presents Bartley's arguments in context of popperian discussion, his critical response to the reopening of the problem of demarcation between science and pseudoscience in contemporary debates and points out at least three (Bartley, Kuhn, Laudan) denial of the problem of demarcation claimed already in the past. The conclusion of the study offers a solution in accordance with the concept of Bartley's conception of acceptability of theory.

Keywords: William W. Bartley; Karl R. Popper; Thomas S. Kuhn; demarcation; falsification; inductivism.

Prepublished online: December 11, 2016; Published: December 1, 2016  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Kovářová, V. (2016). W. W. BARTLEY: RECONSIDERING THE PROBLEM OF DEMARCATION BETWEEN SCIENCE AND METAPHYSICS. E-LOGOS, 23(2), 10-26. doi: 10.18267/j.e-logos.433
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. AGASSI, Joseph. "The Nature of Scientific Problems and Their Roots in Metaphysics." In: BUNGE, M. (ed.), Critical Approaches to Science and Philosophy. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1964.
    2. BARTLEY, William W. Retreat to Commitment. London: Open Court Publishing Company, 1984.
    3. BARTLEY, William W. "Theories of Demarcation Between Science and Metaphysics." In: LAKATOS, I. - MUSGRAVE, A. (eds.), Problems in the Philosophy of Science. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1968. Go to original source...
    4. DUHEM, Pierre. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. New York: Atheneum, 1954. FAJKUS, Břetislav, Současná filosofie a metodologie vědy. Praha: Filosofia, 1997. Go to original source...
    5. FEYERABEND, Paul K. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchist Theory of Knowledge. New York: New Left Books, 1975.
    6. FEYERABEND, Paul K. Problems of Empiricism: Philosophical papers Volume II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Go to original source...
    7. FEYNMAN, Richard; LEIGHTON, Robert B. & SANDS, Mathhew (eds.). Feynmanovy přednášky z fyziky 1. Praha: Fragment, 2013.
    8. GOODMAN, Nelson. Fact, Fiction and Forecast. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983
    9. GOODMAN, Nelson. Způsoby světatvorby. Bratislava: Archa, 1996.
    10. HANSSON, Sven Ove. "Cutting the Gordian Knot of Demarcation." International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 23:237 - 43, 2009. Go to original source...
    11. HOYNINGEN-HUENE, Paul. Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993. Go to original source...
    12. KUHN, Thomas S. "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?" In: LAKATOS, I. - MUSGRAVE, A., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.
    13. KUHN, Thomas S. The Essential Tension. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1977.
    14. KUHN, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University Chicago Press, 1962.
    15. LAKATOS, Imre. "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes." In: LAKATOS, I. - MUSGRAVE, A., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.
    16. LAUDAN Larry. "The Demise of Demarcation Problem." In: COHEN, R. S. - LAUDAN, L. (eds.) Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis: Essays in Honor of Adolf Grunbaum. Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, v. 76. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1983. Go to original source...
    17. PAITLOVÁ, Jitka. "Hans Albert a problém hodnotové neutrality vědy." In: Teorie vědy, 35/3, 2013.
    18. PAITLOVÁ, Jitka. "Metodologická východiska kritického racionalismu Hanse Alberta." In: Filosofický časopis, 63/4, 2015, s. 561-580.
    19. PEREGRIN, Jaroslav. Kapitoly z analytické filosofie. Praha: Filosofia, 2005.
    20. PIGLIUCCI, Massimo & BOUDRY, Maarten (eds.). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. Go to original source...
    21. PIGLIUCCI, Massimo & BOUDRY, Maarten. "Why the Demarcation Problem Matters." In: PIGLIUCCI, M. - BOUDRY, M., Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. Go to original source...
    22. POLANYI, Michael. Personal knowledge. London: Routledge, 1962.
    23. POPPER, Karl R. Conjectures and Refutations, New York: Basic Books, 1962.
    24. POPPER, Karl R. Logika vědeckých zkoumání. Praha: OIKOYMENH, 1997.
    25. QUINE, Willard V. O. "Two Dogmas of Empiricism." In: From a Logical Point of View. New York: Harper & Row, 1963.
    26. THAGARD, Paul. Computational Philosophy of Science. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1993.
    27. THAGARD, Paul. "Why Astrology Is A Pseudoscience." Philosophy of Science Association, Volume 1, 1978, s. 223-234. Go to original source...
    28. VALENTA, Lubomír. Problémy analytické filosofie. Olomouc: Nakladatelství Olomouc, 2003.
    29. WISDOM, John O. "Refutation by observation and refutation by theory." In: LAKATOS, I. - MUSGRAVE, A. (eds.), Problems in the Philosophy of Science. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1968.
    30. WOIT, Peter. Dokonce ani ne špatně. Praha: Paseka, 2010

    Return to the content