A number of authors have drawn attention to the contributions to geology of Robert Hooke, and it has been pointed out that in several ways his ideas were more advanced than those of Steno, who is sometimes taken to be the founder of geology as a scientific discipline. Moreover, it has been argued that in a number of instances Hooke should receive the credit for ideas which are usually believed to have originated in the work of James Hutton. This recognition (...) of the significance of Hooke's work is regarded by the present writer as being well founded. But, by contrast, the relationship between Hooke's geological ideas and his views on the proper methods for conducting scientific enquiries has been largely overlooked, and his views on the methodology of science, as revealed in his Posthumous works, have received little discussion. Moreover, on one of the few occasions on which they were discussed, by William Whewell, they were belittled. Whewell regarded Hooke's methodological contribution as merely ‘an attempt to adapt the Novum organon to the age which succeeded its publication’, 5 and he implied that the ‘same imperfections’ were to be found in the writings of both Hooke and Bacon. The influence of Bacon is, to be sure, most obvious in Hooke's general philosophy. Nevertheless, it will be argued that Hooke had a much clearer idea than did Bacon of the importance of so-called ‘hypothetico-deductive’ methods in science, and that in many ways his methodological views represent a significant advance on those of Bacon. (shrink)

Here the author explains the different ways in which explanation is made. He start saying how we explain things that we don't understand in everyday life, were sometimes simple relates or ideas are enough (to explain complex things to a kid, for example), and for us, when we don't understand something, we organise our thinking in order to find a explanation which has to be intelligible, adequate and correct. In science, they are not always like that, and they start trying (...) to explain the unfamiliar things of the familiar, trying always to develop a theory of the most general kind, which will enable him to explain and predict. They are not looking for adequate, but for correct explanation, which in their case takes the form of a hipotesis. In history they behave just like in everyday life explanations, with little place for generalisations (just middle range), in intelligibility, adequacy, and correctness, because they can not venture in general theory. In conclusion, there is little to say about historical explanation which doesn't fit into everyday life explanation. (shrink)

This wide-ranging book focuses upon the role that Latin was thought an ideal, universal, constructed language would play in the advancement of learning.