الأهداف: هدفت هذه الملقالة إلى رصد العلاقة الجدلية القائمة بين الملعرفةا لعلمية والتكنولوجيا، من خلال محاولة الكشف عن الارتباط بينهما والوقوف عند أوجه التداخل والتأثير، وإبراز حدود هذه العالقة وخصائصها وأبعادها العلميةوالاجتماعية . المهجية: تبنت الدراسة مقاربة تحليلية ذات طابع سوسيو­ أنثربولوجي. من أجل ذلك جرى الوقوف عند مفهوم الملعرفة، ولملعرفة العلمية، كما جرى استدعاء مجموعةمن المواقف النظرية في تخصصات مختلفة لتبيان أثر الملعرفة العلمية في التطور التكنولوجي عبر العصور. النتائج: توصلت الدراسة إلى عدة نتائج أهمها: أن البحث العلمي ساهم (...) على نحو كبير في بناء التقنية على نحو عام، وبالمقابل فإن هذه التكنولوجيا هي انعكاس واضح المعالم لكل إنتاجات وتصورات العلم والملعرفة العلمية. الخلاصة: خلصت الدراسة إلى التشاوج الذي يلي كلا من الملعرفة والتقنية؛ فكما أن العلم يتدخل لإيجاد حلول لبعض المشاكل التي قد تنتج عن الاستعمال المفرط أو غير السليم للتكنولوجيا، لذلك يعد تدخل البحث العلمي في علاقته بالجوانب التقنية، وخاصة المصنعة، أمرا بالغ الأهمية، من أجل توجيه وتصحيح مسار الإنتاجات التكنولوجية لتكون مصدر راحة وسعادة للإلنسان، فإن التقنية بدورها أسهمت على نحو كبير في تقدم البحث العلمي وعملت على تحقيق سبل راحة وسعادة هذا الأخير. (shrink)

Gillian Russell has recently proposed counterexamples to such elementary argument forms as Conjunction Introduction and Identity. These purported counterexamples involve expressions that are sensitive to linguistic context—for example, a sentence which is true when it appears alone but false when embedded in a larger sentence. If they are genuine counterexamples, it looks as though logical nihilism—the view that there are no valid argument forms—might be true. In this paper, I argue that the purported counterexamples are not genuine, on the grounds (...) that they equivocate. Having defused the threat of logical nihilism, I argue that the kind of linguistic context sensitivity at work in Russell’s purported counterexamples, if taken seriously, far from leading to logical nihilism, reveals new, previously undreamt-of valid forms. By way of proof of concept I present a simple logic, Solo-Only Propositional Logic, designed to capture some of them. Along the way, some interesting subtleties about the fallacy of equivocation are revealed. (shrink)

Epistemology is a science that discusses: 1. Human knowledge, 2. Evaluation of the types of human knowledge, 3. Determining the true and false criteria of human knowledge. Although this topic (issue, subject matter), has no long history in the history of science, as an independent science and a branch of philosophy, scholars have never been unaware of the issue of recognition and its value and importance, and attention to this issue is not restricted to recent decades. Also in Islamic philosophy (...) and logic, epistemological topics have been raised sporadically in various dimensions but many of them have an ontological state (approach) rather than an epistemological one. Allamah Tabatabai, as one of the greatest scholars and contemporary Islamic philosophers, discussed in his compilations, directly in some cases, and indirectly in other philosophical discussions, the subject of epistemology. Epistemology includes a variety of topics, but three of them are considered as the most important ones: 1. The definition of knowledge, 2. The possibility of knowledge, 3. The instruments of knowledge. The article analyzes epistemology in these titles from the perspective of Allamah Tabatabai. First, it expresses the importance and necessity of epistemology and then it looks at the historical course of epistemology in the Occident and Islam. (shrink)

In this paper I focus on two contrasting concepts of deduction and induction that have appeared in introductory (formal) logic texts over the past 75 years or so. According to the one, deductive and inductive arguments are defined solely by reference to what arguers claim about the relation between the premises and the conclusions. According to the other, they are defined solely by reference to that relation itself. Arguing that these definitions have defects that are due to their simplicity, I (...) develop definitions that remove these defects by assigning a combination of roles to both arguers’ claims concerning the premises/conclusion relation and the relation itself. Along the way I also present and briefly defend definitions of both deductive and inductive validity that are significantly different from the norm. (shrink)