Abstract
Throughout more than two millennia philosophers adhered massively to ideal standards of scientific rationality going back ultimately to Aristotle’s Analytica posteriora. These standards got progressively shaped by and adapted to new scientific needs and tendencies. Nevertheless, a core of conditions capturing the fundamentals of what a proper science should look like remained remarkably constant all along. Call this cluster of conditions the Classical Model of Science. In this paper we will do two things. First of all, we will propose a general and systematized account of the Classical Model of Science. Secondly, we will offer an analysis of the philosophical significance of this model at different historical junctures by giving an overview of the connections it has had with a number of important topics. The latter include the analytic-synthetic distinction, the axiomatic method, the hierarchical order of sciences and the status of logic as a science. Our claim is that particularly fruitful insights are gained by seeing themes such as these against the background of the Classical Model of Science. In an appendix we deal with the historiographical background of this model by considering the systematizations of Aristotle’s theory of science offered by Heinrich Scholz, and in his footsteps by Evert W. Beth.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
In J. Barnes (Trans. & comm.) (1994). Posterior analytics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Arnauld, A., & Nicole, P. (1662). La logique ou l’art de penser. In P. Clair & F. Girbal (Eds.), (1993). Paris: Vrin. Quotations from J. V. Buroker (Ed. & Trans.) (1996). Logic or the art of thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barnes, J. (1975). Aristotle’s theory of demonstration. In Barnes et al. (Eds.) (pp. 65–87).
Barnes J., Schofield M., Sorabji R. (1975) Articles on Aristotle I Science. Duckworth, London
Barnes. (1994). Commentary. In Aristotle, Posterior analytics J. Barnes (Trans. & comm.) (pp. 81–271). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Beaney, M. (2007). Analysis. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2007 Edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2007/entries/analysis/.
Berg J. (1962) Bolzano’s logic. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm
Beth E.W. (1943) Verleden en toekomst der wetenschappelijke wijsbegeerte. De Gids, 107: 55–67
Beth E.W. (1944) De wijsbegeerte der wiskunde van Parmenides tot Bolzano. Dekker & Van de Vegt, Antwerpen/Nijmegen
Beth E.W. (1950) Critical epochs in the development of the theory of science. The British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, 1: 27–41
Beth E.W. (1965) The foundations of mathematics A study in the philosophy of science 2nd ed. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam
Betti, A. (2008a). Lesniewski’s characteristicia universalis. Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-008-9423-6.
Betti, A. (2008b). Polish axiomatics and its truth: On Tarski’s Leśniewskian background and the Ajdukiewicz connection. In D. Patterson (Ed.), New essays on Tarski and philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press (in press).
Bolzano, B. (1837). Wissenschaftslehre. In L. Winter et al. (Eds.) (1969). Bernard Bolzano Gesamtausgabe. Reihe 1 (Vol. 11–14). Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.
Cantú, P. (2008). Aristotle’s prohibition rule on kind-crossing and the definition of mathematics as a science of quantities. Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-008-9419-2.
de Jong W.R. (2008) How is metaphysics as a science possible?. The Review of Metaphysics, 39: 235–274
de Jong W.R. (1996) Gottlob Frege and the analytic-synthetic distinction within the framework of the Aristotelian model of science. Kant-Studien, 87: 290–324
de Jong W.R. (2001) Bernard Bolzano, analyticity and the Aristotelian model of science. Kant-Studien, 92: 328–349
de Jong, W. R. (2008). The analytic-synthetic distinction and the classical model of science: Kant, Bolzano and Frege. Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-008-9420-9.
Descartes, R. (1637). Discours de la méthode. In Ch. Adam & P. Tannery (Eds.) (1964–1971). Oeuvres de Descartes (Vol. VI, pp. 1–78). Paris: Vrin.
Detel, W. (1993). Forschungsergebnisse. In Aristotle. Werke in Deutscher Übersetzung. Vol. III, part II/1: Analytica posteriora (pp. 263–334). H. Flashar (Ed.), W. Detel (Trans. & comm.). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Dijksterhuis, E. J. (1986). The mechanization of the world-picture. Pythagoras to Newton. Princeton (N.J.): Princeton University Press. First published in Dutch: De mechanisering van het wereldbeeld (1950). Amsterdam: Meulenhoff.
Frege, G. (1884). Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik. Eine logisch-mathematische Untersuchung über den Begriff der Zahl (1961). Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
Gassendi, P. (1658). Institutio Logica 1658. H. Jones (Ed., Trans. & Intr.). (1988). Assen: Van Gorcum.
Granger G.-G. (1976) La théorie aristotélicienne de la science. Aubier Montagne, Paris
Hilbert D. (1918) Axiomatisches Denken. Mathematische Annalen, 78: 405–415
Husserl, E. (1900/1901). Logische Untersuchungen. Halle a.d.S.: Max Niemeyer = Husserliana XVIII, XIX/1, XIX/2. The Hague/Boston/London: M. Nijhoff. J. N. Findlay (Trans.) (1970). London/Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Kant, I. (1787). Kritik der reinen Vernunft (1998). Hamburg: Felix Meiner.
Korte, T. (2008). Frege’s Begriffsschrift as a lingua characteristica. Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-008-9421-8.
Lapointe, S. (2008). Bolzano, a priori knowledge and the classical model of science. Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-008-9421-8.
Mancosu P. (1991) On the status of proofs by contradiction in the seventeenth century. Synthese, 88: 15–41
Mancosu P. (1996) Philosophy of mathematics and mathematical practice in the seventeenth century. Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford
Mignucci M. (1965) La teoria aristotelica della scienza. Sansoni, Firenze
Mignucci M. (1975). L’argomentazione dimostrativa in Aristotele. Commento agli Analitici Secondi. Antenore, Padova
Mikkeli H. (2002) Italian Aristotelians on the debate over the subalternation of medicine to natural philosophy. In: Leijenhorst C., Lüthy C., Thijssen J.M.M.H. (eds) The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from antiquity to the seventeenth century. Brill, Leiden, pp 307–324
Ong W.J. (1979) Ramus. Method, and the decay of dialogue. Octagon Books, New York
Pascal, B. (1965). In L. Brunschvicq, P. Bourton, & F. Gazier (Eds.), Oeuvres de Blaise Pascal. Vaduz: Krause Reprints.
Randall J.H. (1961) The School of Padua and the emergence of modern science. Antenore, Padova
Scholz, H. (1930/1975). The ancient axioamtic theory. In J. Barnes et al. (Eds.) (1975) (pp. 50–64). (Trans. Die axiomatik der Alten. (1930). Blätter für Deutsche Philosophie, IV, 259–278.
Tatzel A. (2002) Bolzano’s theory of ground and consequence. Notre-Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 43: 1–24
Vasoli C. (1984) La logica. In: Folena G., Arnaldi G., Pastore Stocchi M. (eds) Storia della cultura veneta (Vol. III/3). Neri Pozza, Vicenza, pp 35–73
Verdonk J.J. (1966) Petrus Ramus en de wiskunde. Van Gorcum, Assen
Wolff, Chr. (1713). Vernünftigen Gedanken von den Kräften des menslichen Verstandes und ihrem richtigen Gebrauche in Erkenntnis der Wahrheit (1978). Hildesheim: Olms.
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
de Jong, W.R., Betti, A. The Classical Model of Science: a millennia-old model of scientific rationality. Synthese 174, 185–203 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9417-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9417-4