Axiomatization is uncommon outside mathematics, partly for being often viewed as embalming, partly because the best-known axiomatizations have serious shortcomings, and partly because it has had only one eminent champion, namely David Hilbert. The aims of this paper are to describe what will be called dual axiomatics, for it concerns not just the formalism, but also the meaning of the key concepts; and to suggest that every instance of dual axiomatics presupposes some philosophical view or other. To illustrate these points, (...) a theory of solidarity will be crafted and axiomatized, and certain controversies in both classical and quantum physics, as well as in the philosophy of mind, will be briefly discussed. The upshot of this paper is that dual axiomatics, unlike the purely formal axiomatics favored by the structuralists school, is not a luxury but a tool helping resolve some scientific controversies. (shrink)

This article addresses the following problems: What is a mechanism, how can it be discovered, and what is the role of the knowledge of mechanisms in scientific explanation and technological control? The proposed answers are these. A mechanism is one of the processes in a concrete system that makes it what it is — for example, metabolism in cells, interneuronal connections in brains, work in factories and offices, research in laboratories, and litigation in courts of law. Because mechanisms are largely (...) or totally imperceptible, they must be conjectured. Once hypothesized they help explain, because a deep scientific explanation is an answer to a question of the form, "How does it work, that is, what makes it tick—what are its mechanisms?" Thus, by contrast with the subsumption of particulars under a generalization, an explanation proper consists in unveiling some lawful mechanism, as when political stability is explained by either coercion, public opinion manipulation, or democratic participation. Finding mechanisms satisfies not only the yearning for understanding, but also the need for control. Key Words: explanation • function • mechanism • process • system • systemism. (shrink)

An issue consistently raised in the music therapy literature is the lack of a unified understanding of its concepts as well as the reasons for its efficacy. This issue is suggested to be closely linked to problems of scientific establishment of the field. Plenty of discussions regarding the achievability, applicability and even the desirability of such a unified understanding exist in the current literature of music therapy. A question consistently remaining unexplored, however, is that under which circumstances could it even (...) be possible for the discipline to reach a unified scientific understanding of the relationship between health, music and therapy? In the present thesis, universal law is examined as the notion which constitutes the basis of the unified body of knowledge within the scientific disciplines which have historically transcended their proto-scientific stages, and the applicability of the notion to the discipline of music therapy in order to answer its similar requirements of scientific establishment is discussed. (shrink)

Metascientific ontology differs from philosophical ontologies in its objectives, objects and methods. By an examination of the ontological theories of Mario Bunge, we will show their main objective is a unified representation of the world as known through the sciences, that their objects of study are scientific concepts, and that their methods do not differ from those that one expects to find in any rational activity. Metascientific ontology is therefore not transcendent because it does not seek to represent non-concrete objects (...) alien to the world we inhabit and to the sciences that study it, and therefore does not need special faculties and methods to carry out its research. Metascientific ontology is a general scientific discourse on the world because it was designed by and for the sciences. (shrink)

L’ontologie métascientifique se distingue des ontologies philosophiques par ses objectifs, ses objets et ses méthodes. Par un examen des théories ontologiques de Mario Bunge, nous montrerons que leur principal objectif est l’élaboration d’une représentation unifiée du monde tel que connu via les sciences, que leurs objets d’étude sont les concepts scientifiques, et que leurs méthodes ne diffèrent pas de celles qu’on s’attend à trouver dans toute activité rationnelle. L’ontologie métascientifique n’est donc pas transcendante parce qu’elle ne cherche pas à représenter (...) des objets étrangers au monde que nous habitons et aux sciences qui l’étudient, et par conséquent elle n’a pas besoin de facultés ni de méthodes spéciales pour mener à bien ses recherches. L’ontologie métascientifique est un discours général scientifique sur le monde parce que conçue par et pour les sciences. (shrink)