The positive philosophy by William Whewell: Between inductivism and apriorism

Authors

  • Илья Теодорович Касавин Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences, 12/1, Goncharnaya str., Moscow, 109420, Russian Federation
  • Александр Леонидович Никифоров Lobachevsky State University, 23-1, pr. Gagarina, Nizhnij Novgorod, 603950, Russian Federation

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2018.404

Abstract

One can notice a certain deficiency of conceptual resources in contemporary epistemology and philosophy of science. The popularity of post-positivist philosophy is dropping; and the postmodern studies have difficulty adapting to the analysis of scientific knowledge. In this regard, an amplified interest in the forgotten figures of the 19 century arises. Among them, the personality of William Whewell attracts special attention – the Cambridge philosopher, scholar, scientist, theologian, priest, polymath, a major reformer of university education, and father-figure of the British philosophy of science. In the article, the authors define his place in the 19th century philosophy as well as in the context of current discussions. Historical reconstruction of his concept of method of scientific cognition shows that it is hardly reducible to ideas by D. Hume or I. Kant and simultaneously possesses the essentially original features in comparison with the known concepts of his time by O. Comte and J.S. Mill. A comparison of Whewell’s philosophy of science with the hypothetical-deductive method described by neopositivists or with Karl Popper’s falsificationism though grasps some similarities, still risks unwarranted modernization. His original method of synthesis of empiricism and rationalism in the understanding of scientific knowledge in fact lays the groundwork for a historically oriented philosophy of science long before the historical epistemology of the French school. Accessing the analysis of ideas of William Whewell and introducing them in philosophical turnover resurrects a unique cultural and intellectual context of formation of professional science in the Victorian era, contributes to the restoration of historical justice, leads to the revision of a number of historical and philosophical imprints, in particular, in assessing the positivism and analytic philosophy, and also provides up-to-date discussions in philosophy of science by the new empirical staff.

Keywords:

William Whewell, the Victorian philosophy of science, apriori, empiricism, induction, rationalism, ideas, history of science

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Литература

Хьюэлл У. Философия индуктивных наук, основанная на их истории / отв. ред. И. Т. Касавин, пер. А. Л. Никифорова и Е. В. Востриковой, коммент. И. Т. Касавина, Т. Д. Соколовой. М.: Кнорус, 2016. 500 c.

Уэвелл У. История индуктивных наук от древнейшего до настоящего времени: в 3 т. М., 1867–1869.

Поппер К. Предположения и опровержения. М.: АСТ, 2004. 638 с.

Хьюэлл У. Конт и позитивизм // Эпистемология и философия науки. 2017. No 4. С. 209–224.

Антоновский А. Ю., Бараш Р. Э. Хьюэлл против Конта, или Возможна ли коммуникация между априоризмом и позитивизмом? // Эпистемология и философия науки. 2017. No 4. С. 209–224.

Кун Т. Структура научных революций. М.: АСТ, 2001. 605 с.

Buchdahl G. Deductivist versus Inductivist Approaches in the Philosophy of Science as Illustrated by Some Controversies Between Whewell and Mill // Fisch M., Schaffer S. (eds.) William Whewell: A Composite Portrait. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. P. 311–344.

Butts R. Whewell’s Logic of Induction // Giere R. N., Westfall R. S., eds. Foundations of Scientific Method. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973. P. 53–85.

Niiniluoto I. Notes on Popper as a Follower of Whewell and Peirce // Ajatus. 1977. Vol. 37. Р. 272–327.

Маркова Л. А. О совместимости понятия истины с социологическими интерпретациями науки // Истина в науках и философии. М.: Канон+, 2010. С. 270–294.

Филатов В. П., Швырев В. С., Васюков В. Л. Обсуждаем статьи об индукции // Эпистемология и философия науки. 2008. No 1. С. 149–157.

Snyder L. J. William Whewell // The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter Edition) / ed. by E. N. Zalta. 2012. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whewell/ (дата обращения: 23.04.2018).

Спивак В. И. Теория индукции Уильяма Уэвелла // Я. (А. Слинин) и Мы. К 70-летию профессора Ярослава Анатольевича Слинина. СПб.: С.-Петерб. философ. об-во, 2002 (Сер. Мыслители. Вып. 10). C. 507–518.

Касавин И. Т. Викторианская философия науки: Уильям Хьюэлл (размышление над книгой) // Вопросы философии. 2017. No 3. С. 63–73.

Касавин И. Т. История науки à la belle lettre: опыт Лауры Снайдер // Эпистемология и философия науки. 2016. No 2. С. 233–237.

References

Whewell, W. (2016), Filosofiia induktivnykh nauk, osnovannaia na ikh istorii [Philosophy of inductive sciences based on their history], ed. by I. Kasavin, trans. by A. Nikiforov and E. Vostrikova, comm. by I. Kasavin and N. Sokolova, Knorus Publ., Мoscow, Russia.

Whewell, W. (1867–1869), Istoriia induktivnykh nauk ot drevneishego do nastoiashchego vremeni [History of Inductive Sciences, from the earliest to the present time], in 3 vols., Мoscow, Russia.

Popper, К. (2004), Predpolozheniia i oproverzheniia [Conjections and Refutations], AST Publ., Moscow, Russia.

Whewell, W. (2017), “Kont i pozitivizm” [“Comte and Positivism”], trans. by A. Nikiforov. Epistemologiia i filosofiia nauki, no. 4, pp. 209–224, Russia.

Antonovski, A. and Barash, R. (2017), Whewell against Comte, or Is a Communication between Apriorism and Positivism possible?, Epistemologiia i filosofiia nauki, no. 4, pp. 209–224, Russia.

Kuhn, Т. (2001), Struktura nauchnykh revoliutsii [The Structure of Scientific Revolutions], trans. by A. Nikiforov, АSТ Publ., Мoscow, Russia.

Buchdahl, G. (1991), “Deductivist versus Inductivist Approaches in the Philosophy of Science as Illustrated by Some Controversies Between Whewell and Mill,” in Fisch, M. and Schaffer, S. (eds.), William Whewell: A Composite Portrait, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 311–344.

Butts, R. (1973), “Whewell’s Logic of Induction”, in Giere, R. N., and Westfall, R. S. (eds.), Foundations of Scientific Method, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp. 53–85.

Niiniluoto, I. (1977), Notes on Popper as a Follower of Whewell and Peirce, Ajatus, vol. 37, pр. 272–327.

Markova, L. (2010), “On compatibility of the concept of truth with the sociological interpretations of science”, in Istina v naukakh i filosofii [Truth in the Sciences and Philosophy], Каnоn+ Publ., Мoscow, pp. 270–294, Russia.

Filatov, V., Shvirev, V., Vasjukov, V. (2008), “Discussing the articles on induction”, Epistemologiia i filosofiia nauki, no. 1, pp. 149–157.

Snyder, Laura J. (2012), “William Whewell”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter Edition), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whewell/ (accessed 23 Apr. 2018).

Spivak, V. I. (2002), “Theory of Induction by William Whewell”, in Ia. (A. Slinin) i My. K 70-letiiu professora Iaroslava Anatol’evicha Slinina [I. (А. Slinin) and We. To the 70th jubilee of prof. Jaroslav Anatolievich Slinin], ser. “Thinkers”, is. 10, St. Petersburg Philosophy Society, St. Petersburg, pp. 507–518, Russia.

Kasavin, I. (2017), “The Victorian philosophy of Science: William Whewell (a contemplation on the book)”, Voprosi filosofii, no. 3, pp. 63–73.

Kasavin, I. (2016), “ The History of Science à la belle lettre: a case of Laura Snyder”, Epistemologiia i filosofiia nauki, no. 2, pp. 233–237.

Downloads

Published

2019-01-14

How to Cite

Касавин, И. Т., & Никифоров, А. Л. (2019). The positive philosophy by William Whewell: Between inductivism and apriorism. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 34(4), 501–514. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2018.404

Issue

Vol. 34 No. 4 (2018): Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies

Section

Philosophy

License

Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.