Overturning Dilthey’s view on natural sciences

Journal title EPISTEMOLOGIA
Author/s Leonardo Colletti
Publishing Year 2015 Issue 2014/2 Language English
Pages 15 P. 202-216 File size 65 KB
DOI 10.3280/EPIS2014-002002
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Wilhelm Dilthey’s exploration of the scientific status of disciplines such as history, sociology, etc. (which he calls the spiritual sciences) is grounded on a detailed attempt of demarcation between these sciences and the natural sciences. Backbone elements of his categorization are contextualization vs. decontextualization, internal vs. external subject matter, singular vs. universal description, understanding vs. explanation, ethical relevance vs. irrelevance. As a consequence, a long-standing, popular separation between the so-called two cultures found an institutionalization at the academic level. By referring to each of these items, I propose here a collection of arguments towards a perspective in which this separation is not only reduced, but an unification is attempted in an unexpected direction: there are the natural sciences which should fundamentally be seen as spiritual sciences, rather than the opposite. In the long term, a reflection on this may lead to a cultural shift in how natural sciences are perceived, inside and outside academy, and in the methods in which both kind of sciences are explored.

Keywords: Two cultures, Dilthey, contextualization, unification, spiritual sciences, Husserl.

  1. Agazzi E., Di Bernardo G. (eds.) (2010). Relations between Natural Sciences and Human Sciences, Genova, Tilgher.
  2. Agazzi E., Di Bernardo G. (2010). Introduction. In Agazzi E., Di Bernardo G. (eds.) (2010), Relations between Natural Sciences and Human Sciences, Genova, Tilgher, pp. 5-21.
  3. Bartley III W.W. (1962). Achilles, the Tortoise, and Explanation in Science and History, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 13(49), pp. 15-33.
  4. Cassidy D. et al. (2002). Understanding Physics, New York, Springer Verlag.
  5. Colletti L. (2011). “Schrödinger’s lamentation” and the role of subjectivity in modern physics, Atti Acc. Rov. Agiati, 261(1), serie IX, B, pp. 21-41.
  6. Dilthey W. (1923-1936). Wilhelm Diltheys Gesammelte Schriften (12 voll.), Leipzig [u.a.], B.G. Teubner Verlag.
  7. Dilthey W. (1927). Der Aufbau der geschichtlichen Welt in den Geisteswissenschaften. In Dilthey W. (1923-1936), Wilhelm Diltheys Gesammelte Schriften (12 voll.), Leipzig [u.a.], B.G. Teubner Verlag, vol. 7.
  8. Donagan A. (1964). Historical Explanation: The Popper-Hempel Theory reconsidered, History and Theory, 4(1), pp. 3-26.
  9. Duhem P.M.M. (1913). Le système du monde: histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic, Paris, Hermann.
  10. Einstein, A., Born H., Born M. (1982). Briefwechsel 1916-1955, Frankfurt, Erbrich.
  11. Grant E. (1996). The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages, New York, Cambridge University Press.
  12. Henry M. (2000). Incarnation, Paris, Edition du Seuil.
  13. Hodgson P.E. (2001). The Christian Origin of Science, Logos, 4(2), pp. 138-159. 216
  14. Husserl E. (1936). Die Krisis der europaischen Wissenschaften und die transszendentale Phanomenolgie.
  15. In Nijhoff M. (ed.), Edmund Husseerl Gesammelte Werke, VI, Haag, Husserliana, 1969.
  16. Kuhn T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, University Press.
  17. Lenk H. (2010). Higher-level interdisciplinarity by methodological scheme-interpretationism. In
  18. Agazzi, Di Bernardo (eds.) (2010), Relations between Natural Sciences and Human Sciences, Genova, Tilgher, pp. 117-151.
  19. Michelmore P. (1962). Einstein, Profile of the Man, New York, Dodd.
  20. Mosterin J. (2010). Human versus Natural: An Untenable Dichotomy. In Agazzi, Di Bernardo
  21. (eds.) (2010), Relations between Natural Sciences and Human Sciences, Genova, Tilgher, pp. 61-82.
  22. Poincaré H. (1905). La valeur de la science, Genève, Ed. du Cheval Ailé C. Bourquin, 1946.
  23. Schrödinger E. (1954). Nature and the Greeks. Shearman Lectures delivered at University College, London on 24, 26, 28, and 31 May 1948, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  24. Snow C.P. (1959). The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, New York, Cambridge University Press.
  25. Toulmin S.E. (1990). Cosmopolis: the hidden agenda of modernity, New York, Chicago University Press

Leonardo Colletti, Overturning Dilthey’s view on natural sciences in "EPISTEMOLOGIA" 2/2014, pp 202-216, DOI: 10.3280/EPIS2014-002002