Clicca qui per scaricare

«So much the worse for logic»: Notes on William Whewell’s methodology
Autori/Curatori: Enzo Campelli 
Anno di pubblicazione:  2016 Fascicolo: 111 Lingua: Inglese 
Numero pagine:  137 P. 87-123 Dimensione file:  339 KB
DOI:  10.3280/SR2016-111005
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più:  clicca qui   qui 

Without any pretense at being an exhaustive overview of William Whewell’s thoughts, this essay focuses on a few fundamental points, in which this semi-forgotten author anticipates with great clarity theses that today are shared by many scholars of scientific methodology. The themes highlighted intend to underline Whewell’s how contribution was ahead of its time, and include: the problem of the difficult delimitation between fact and theory; the critique of the traditional definition of inductive inference and the «invention» of retroduction or abduction (as Pierce will call them); a remarkably interesting model of bold conjectures, on which Popper will keenly focus

  1. J. Agassi (1975), Science in Flux, Dordrecht-Boston, D. Reidel Publishing Company,, DOI: 10.1007/978-94-010-1810-4
  2. J. Agassi (1981), Science and Society. Studies in the Sociology of Science, Dordrecht-Boston-London, D. Reidel Publishing Company,, DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-6456-6
  3. R. Blanché (1935), Le rationalism de Whewell, Paris, Librairie Félix Alcan.
  4. G. Buchdahl (1971), «Inductivist versus Deductivist Approaches in the Philosophy of Science as Illustrated by Some Controversies between Whewell and Mill», The Monist, 55, pp. 343-67.
  5. R.E. Butts (1965), «Necessary Truth in Whewell’ Theory of Science», American Philosophical Quarterly, 2, pp. 161-81.
  6. R.E. Butts (1968), William Whewell’s Theory of Scientific Method, Pittsburg, University of Pittsburg Press.
  7. E. Campelli (1991), Il metodo e il suo contrario. Sul recupero della problematica del metodo in sociologia, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  8. E. Campelli (1997), «Un rapporto imaginabilis? Ludwik Fleck e Thomas Kuhn», Sociologia e ricerca sociale, XVIII, 53-54, pp. 7-52.
  9. E. Campelli (2016), Nullius in verba. Il metodo nella rivoluzione scientifica, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  10. S.F. Cannon (1978), Science in Culture: The Early Victorian Period, New York, Dawson History Publications.
  11. G.N. Cantor (1991), Between Rationalism and Romanticism, in Fisch and Schaffer (eds.) (1991).
  12. R. Descartes, Regulae ad Directionem ingenii. Texte critique établi par Giovanni Crapulli avec la version hollandaise du XIIème siècle, La Haye, Martinus Nijhoff, 1966.
  13. U. Eco (1990), I limiti dell’interpretazione, Milano, Bompiani.
  14. A. Einstein (1934), «On the Method of Theoretical Physics», Philosophy of Science, 2, pp. 163-9.
  15. B. Farrington (1964), The Philosophy of Francis Bacon. An Essay on Its Development from 1603 to 1609 with New Translation of Fundamental Texts, Liverpool, Liverpool University Press.
  16. M. Fisch (1985a), «Necessary and Contingent Truth in William Whewell’s Antithetical Theory of Knowledge», Studies in History and Philosophy of Science XVI, 4, pp. 275-314.
  17. M. Fisch (1985b), «Whewell’s Consilience of Inductions: an Evaluation», Philosophy of Science, LIII, 3, pp. 239-55.
  18. M. Fisch (1987), Il collegamento dei fatti: la nozione non necessaria di verità empirica di William Whewell, in Simili (a c. di) (1987).
  19. M.H. Fisch (ed.) (1982-1984), Writings of Charles S. Peirce: a Chronological Edition, Bloomington, Indiana University Press.
  20. M. Fisch (1991), William Whewell Philosopher of Science, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
  21. M. Fisch, S. Schaffer (eds.) (1991), William Whewell. A Composite Portrait, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
  22. L. Fleck (1935), Enstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache, Basel, Benno Schwabe; new. ed., Frankfurt a. M., Suhrkamp, 1980; eng trans., Genesis and Development of a Scientific Facts, Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press, 1979.
  23. D. Gabbai, J. Woods (eds.) (2008), Handbook of the History of Logic. British Logic in the Nineteenth Century, Amsterdam, Elsevier, vol. 4. N.R. Hanson (1958), Patterns of Discovery. An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  24. J. Herschel (1841), «Whewell on Inductive Sciences», Quarterly Review, 68, pp. 177-238.
  25. M. Hesse (1968), Consilience of Inductions, in Lakatos (1968),, DOI: 10.1016/S0049-237X(08)71046-2
  26. M. Hesse (1971), «Whewell’s Consilience of Inductions and Predictions», The Monist, 55, pp. 520-4.
  27. J. Kepler, Gesammelte Werke, München, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1995.
  28. J. Kozhamthadam (1994), The Discovery of Kepler’s Laws. The Interaction of Science Philosophy and Religion, London, University of Notre Dame Press.
  29. T.S. Kuhn (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, University of Chicago Press,
  30. T.S. Kuhn (1977), The Essential Tension, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
  31. I. Lakatos (1968), The Problem of Inductive Logic, Amsterdam, Nort Holland.
  32. I. Lakatos (1978), The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Philosophical Papers, vol. I and II, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,, DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511621123
  33. I. Lakatos, A. Musgrave (eds.) (1970), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  34. A. Lalande (1929), Les Théories de l’Induction et de l’Experimentation, Paris, Boivin et C,, DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139171434
  35. S. Landucci (2004), La rivoluzione pre-assertoria. Koyré, Flech, Kuhn, Acireale-Roma, Bonanno.
  36. L. Laudan (1970), «Review of Robert Butt’s William Whewell’s Theory of Scientific Method », British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 21, pp. 311-2,
  37. L. Laudan (1971), «William Whewell on the Consilience of Inductions», The Monist, 55, pp. 368-91.
  38. J. Losee (1972), A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  39. L. Magnani (2000), Abduction, Reason and Science: Progresses of Discovery and Explanation, Dordrecht, Kluwer,, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-8562-0
  40. S. Marcucci (1963), L’«idealismo» scientifico di William Whewell, Pisa, Università degli studi di Pisa, Istituto di filosofia.
  41. P.B. Medawar (1969), Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought, Philadelphia, American Philosophical Society.
  42. J.S. Mill (1843), A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive. Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation, London, J.W.
  43. Parker; cf. 1930, Longmans, Green and Co., London, New York, Toronto.
  44. D. Oldroyd (1986), The Arch of Knowledge. An Introductory Study of the History of the Philosophy and Methodology of Science, NewYork and London, Methuen.
  45. C.S. Peirce (1865), Lecture on the Theories of Whewell, Mill and Comte, in Fisch (ed.) (1982-1984, vol. I).
  46. C.S. Peirce (1869), Lectures on British Logicians, in Fisch (ed.) (1982-1984, vol. II).
  47. C.S. Peirce (1960), Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, voll. I-VI, by C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
  48. C.S. Peirce (2005), Scritti scelti, Torino, Utet.
  49. A.M. Petroni (1990), I modelli, l’invenzione la scoperta. Saggio su Keplero, la rivoluzione copernicana e la «New Philosophy of Science», Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  50. J.H. Poincaré (1902), La science et l’hypothèse, Paris, Flammarion. K.R. Popper (1969), Conjectures and Refutations, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  51. K.R. Popper (1934), Logic der Forschung, Wien, Julius Springer.
  52. H. Reichenbach (1938), Experience and Prediction. An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1938.
  53. S. Ross (1962), «Scientist: A Story of a Word», Annals of Science, XVIII, pp. 65-85.
  54. R. Simili (a c. di) (1987), L’epistemologia di Cambridge 1850-1950, Bologna, il Mulino.
  55. L.J. Snyder (1997), «Discoverers’ Induction», Philosophy of Science, LXIV, 4, pp. 580-604,, DOI: 10.1086/392573
  56. L.J. Snyder (2008), «The Whole Box of Tools»: William Whewell and the Logic of induction, in Gabbai, Woods (eds.) (2008).
  57. L.J. Snyder (2011), Philosophical Breakfast Club, New York, Random House.
  58. I. Todhunter (1876), William Whewell, D.D. Master of Trinity College Cambridge: An Account of his Writings with Selections from his Literary and Scientific Correspondence, London, Macmillan and Co., 2 vols.; repr. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011.
  59. G.H. von Wright (1957), The Logical Problem of Induction, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
  60. J. Wettersten (2005), Whewell’s Critics. Have they prevented him from Doing Good?, Amsterdam-New York, Rodopi.
  61. J. Wettersten, J. Agassi (1991), Whewell’s Problematic Heritage, in Fisch, Schaffer (eds.) (1991).
  62. W. Whewell (1837), History of the Inductive Sciences, from the Earliest to the Present Time, London, John Parker and Son, West Strand, 3 vols.; new. ed., Bristol, Thoemmes Press, 2001.
  63. W. Whewell (1840), Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences Founded upon Their History; A Facsimile of the Second Edition, London, 1847, New York and London, Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1967.
  64. W. Whewell (1858), Novum organum Renovatum, London, John Parker and Son, West Strand.
  65. W. Whewell (1860), On the Philosophy of Discovery: Chapters Historical and Critical, London, John Parker and Son, West Strand.
  66. R. Yeo (1993), Defining Science. William Whewell, Natural Knowledge and Public Debate in Early Victorian Britain, Cambridge, Cambridge, University Press,, DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511521515

Enzo Campelli, in "SOCIOLOGIA E RICERCA SOCIALE " 111/2016, pp. 87-123, DOI:10.3280/SR2016-111005


FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association associazione indipendente e no profit per facilitare l'accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche