Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. (1 other version)Carnap, Kuhn, and the History of Science: A Reply to Thomas Uebel.J. C. Pinto de Oliveira - 2015 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 46 (1):215-223.
    The purpose of this article is to respond to Thomas Uebel´s criticisms of my comments regarding the current revisionism of Carnap´s work and its relations to Kuhn. I begin by pointing out some misunderstandings in the interpretation of my article. I then discuss some aspects related to Carnap´s view of the history of science. First, I emphasize that it was not due to a supposed affinity between Kuhn´s conceptions and those of logical positivism that Kuhn was invited to write the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • A new perspective on Kuhn—in Spanish: Juan Vicente Mayoral: Thomas S. Kuhn: La búsqueda de la estructura. Zaragoza, Spain: Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza, 2017, 523pp, €29.00. [REVIEW]Alex Levine - 2018 - Metascience 27 (2):209-211.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Duhem’s Legacy for the Change in the Historiography of Science: An Analysis Based on Kuhn’s Writings.Oliveira Amélia - 2017 - Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science 2:127.
    What is the contribution of Duhem’s work to the modern historiography? His interpreters have been discussing this question and ordinarily have recognized that the main aspect in his extensive work is connected with his research of medieval science. It has become customary to speak of the “discovery of medieval science” as his foremost historiographic achievement. This paper aims to discuss some aspects of Duhem’s historiography more for its promotion of a new historical perspective than for its results. Duhem’s legacy for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Kuhn, Sarton, and the history of science.J. C. Pinto de Oliveira & Amelia J. Oliveira - unknown
    The scientific work of Leonardo da Vinci may have served as the main inspiration for the historical research of George Sarton. Although he never produced a work he felt was worthy of its subject, the little that he did write about Leonardo reveals the importance he attributed to him in the history of science. This is especially clear in Sarton´s treatment of Leonardo and a discovery he did not make: William Harvey´s discovery of blood circulation in the 17th Century. In (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Thomas Kuhn, the Image of Science and the Image of Art: The First Manuscript of Structure.J. C. Pinto de Oliveira - 2017 - Perspectives on Science 25 (6):746-765.
    Thomas Kuhn's philosophy of science, which he developed by focusing on physics, was later applied by other authors to virtually all areas or disciplines of culture. What interests me here, however, is the movement in the opposite direction: the role that one of these disciplines, history of art, played in the conception of Kuhn'stheoryof science.In a 1969 article, his only published text concerning science and art, Kuhn makes a brief and intriguing observation about The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. He says (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • (1 other version)Carnap, Kuhn, and the History of Science: A Reply to Thomas Uebel.J. C. Pinto de Oliveira - 2015 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 46 (1):215-223.
    The purpose of this article is to respond to Thomas Uebel’s criticisms of my comments regarding the current revisionism of Carnap’s work and its relations to Kuhn. I begin by pointing out some misunderstandings in the interpretation of my article. I then discuss some aspects related to Carnap’s view of the history of science. First, I emphasize that it was not due to a supposed affinity between Kuhn’s conceptions and those of logical positivists that Kuhn was invited to write the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Kuhn, Condorcet, and Comte: On the Justification of the “Old” Historiography of Science.J. C. Pinto de Oliveira - 2020 - Perspectives on Science 28 (3):375-397.
    Despite the importance of the “historiographical revolution” in Kuhn’s work, he did not carry out a specific study about it. Without a systematic investigation into it, he even affirms that the “old” historiography of science (OHS) is unhistorical, suggesting its summary disqualification in the face of his “new historiography” of science (NHS). My wider project, of which this paper is a part, is to better discuss the issue of the justification of the NHS. In this paper, I discuss the justification (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • O que é, afinal, conhecimento cumulativo?Amélia de Jesus Oliveira - 2018 - Veritas – Revista de Filosofia da Pucrs 63 (3):822-855.
    Depois dos anos 60, e especialmente depois da repercussão da obra kunhiana, tornou-se comum a distinção entre o ponto de vista continuísta e o descontinuísta na avaliação do desenvolvimento científico. Kuhn passou a ser visto como o grande descontinuísta ao lado de Koyré e Butterfield e foi considerado o causador de uma grande mudança no modo de se conceber o desenvolvimento da ciência. Em diversas abordagens, a noção de continuidade tem sido, muito frequentemente, equiparada à acumulação, que implica necessariamente a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark