This volume has its already distant or1g1n in an inter national conference on Evolutionary Epistemology the editors organized at the University of Ghent in November 1984. This conference aimed to follow up the endeavor started at the ERISS (Epistemologically Relevant Internalist Sociology of Science) conference organized by Don Campbell and Alex Rosen berg at Cazenovia Lake, New York, in June 1981, whilst in jecting the gist of certain current continental intellectual developments into a debate whose focus, we thought, was in (...) danger of being narrowed too much, considering the still underdeveloped state of affairs in the field. Broadly speaking, evolutionary epistemology today con sists of two interrelated, yet qualitatively distinct inves tigative efforts. Both are drawing on Darwinian concepts, which may explain why many people have failed to discriminate them. One is the study of the evolution of the cognitive apparatus of living organisms, which is first and foremost the province of biologists and psychologists (H. C. Plotkin, Ed. , Learning, Development, and Culture: Essays in Evolu tionary Epistemology, New York, Wiley, 1984), although quite a few philosophers - professional or vocational - have also felt the need to express themselves on this vast subject (F. M. Wuketits, Ed. , Conce ts and Approaches in Evolutionary Epistemology, Dordrecht Boston, Reidel, 1984). The other approach deals with the evolution of science, and has been dominated hitherto by (allegedly) 'naturalized' philosophers; no book-length survey of this literature is available at present. (shrink)

This article presents, in a programmatic way, the histoire croisée approach, its methodological implications and its empirical developments. Histoire croisée draws on the debates about comparative history, transfer studies, and connected or shared history that have been carried out in the social sciences in recent years. It invites us to reconsider the interactions between different societies or cultures, erudite disciplines or traditions . Histoire croisée focuses on empirical intercrossings consubstantial with the object of study, as well as on the operations (...) by which researchers themselves cross scales, categories, and viewpoints. The article first shows how this approach differs from purely comparative or transfer studies. It then develops the principles of pragmatic and reflexive induction as a major methodological principle of histoire croisée. While underlining the need and the methods of a historicization of both the objects and categories of analysis, it calls for a reconsideration of the way history can combine empirical and reflexive concerns into a dynamic and flexible approach. (shrink)

This editorial article reports on the progress that the Journal of Research Practice (JRP) has achieved in its ongoing development since November 2011, when a number of editorial initiatives were announced. Several new initiatives are also proposed. In addition, there are some current announcements, including a number of recent awards, distinctions, and nominations.

I focus on the relationship between the coalition of ideas including constructivism and enactivism on the one side, and ontology in general on the other. Based on a certain logico-phenomenological attitude that dominated Polish philosophy in the 20th century I argue that ontology as such is not burdened with realistic or representationalist presumptions. Finally, certain more specific issues raised by the commentators are also addressed, including the very usability of the notion of cognitive niche and its role when it comes (...) to the problem of presentation. (shrink)

Artykuł określa kategorie aspektu oraz wskazuje dwie odmiany stanowiska filozoficznego odnoszące się do tegoż pojęcia. Następnie przeprowadza ich krytykę w odniesieniu do współczesnej kognitywistyki.

Th. 1. Güterlehre. -- Th. 2. Tugendlehre. -- Th. 3. Pflichtenlehre.

Es wird gezeigt, daß Schlicks physikalischer Denkansatz in der Erkenntnislehre sich wesentlich vom sprachanalytischen Denkansatz in der analytischen Wissenschafts- und Erkenntnistheorie unterscheidet. In der Schlickschen Erkenntnis- und Wissenschaftstheorie fällt, für gewisse implizit definierte Strukturen, der Gegensatz von analytisch und synthetisch weg, wodurch Schlick in schärfsten Gegensatz sowohl zur Kantischen Wissenschaftsphüosophie, wie auch zu der des Wiener Kreises gerät. Auch die anthropologische Fundierung von Schlicks Erkenntnis- und Wissenschaftstheorie unterscheidet diese wesentlich von der des Wiener Kreises. Schlick hat ein originelles eigenes Bild (...) der Wissenschaften und eüie eigene Wissenschaftstheorie geschaffen, die im weitesten Umfange in der phliosophischen Tradition steht und diese sogar entscheidend umgewandelt hat. (shrink)