Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Editorial Note

Nota Editorial;
Nota Editorial

dc.creatorMartínez Muñoz, Sergio F.
dc.date2018-12-27
dc.date.accessioned2020-08-21T20:50:49Z
dc.date.available2020-08-21T20:50:49Z
dc.identifierhttps://revistas.unbosque.edu.co/index.php/rcfc/article/view/2566
dc.identifier10.18270/rcfc.v18i37.2566
dc.identifier.urihttp://test.repositoriodigital.com:8080/handle/123456789/11209
dc.descriptionN/Aen-US
dc.descriptionN/Aes-AR
dc.descriptionN/Aes-ES
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.formattext/html
dc.formatapplication/xml
dc.languagespa
dc.publisherUniversidad El Bosquees-ES
dc.relationhttps://revistas.unbosque.edu.co/index.php/rcfc/article/view/2566/2084
dc.relationhttps://revistas.unbosque.edu.co/index.php/rcfc/article/view/2566/2102
dc.relationhttps://revistas.unbosque.edu.co/index.php/rcfc/article/view/2566/2121
dc.relation/*ref*/Arabatzis, Theodore y Jutta Schickore. “Ways of Integrating History and Philosophy of Science”. Perspectives on Science 20.4 (2012): 395-408. Burian, Richard. “More than a Marriage of Convenience: on the Inextricability of History and Philosophy of Science”. Philosophy of Science 44.1 (1977): 1-42. Chang, Hasok. “Beyond Case-Studies: History as Philosophy”. Integrating History and Philosophy of Science: Problems and Prospects. Eds. Seymour H. Mauskopf y Tad M. Schmaltz. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012. 109-24. David, Paul. “Clio and the Economics of QWERTY”. The American Economic Review 75.2 (1985): 332-337 _______. “Path Dependence, its Critics and the Quest for Historical Economics”. Evolution and Path Dependence in Economic Ideas: Past and Present. Comps. Pierre Garrouste y Stabros Ioannides. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2001. 15-40. Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species. 1859. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1959. Estany, A. “Historia y filosofía de la ciencia: ¿en qué términos establecemos la relación?”. Actas del III Congreso de la Sociedad de Lógica, Metodología y Filosofía de la Ciencia en España. Eds. Mary Sol de Mora, et ál. Donostia-San Sebastián: Universidad del País Vasco, 2000. 399-407. Espósito, Maurizio. “Sobre el uso y significado de la historia en filosofía de la ciencia”. Rev. Colomb. Filos. Cienc. 18.37 (2018): 92-117. Fleck, Ludwing. La génesis y el desarrollo de un hecho científico: introducción a la teoría del estilo de pensamiento y del colectivo de pensamiento. 1935. Trads. Meana Luis y Angel de G. Pablo. Madrid: Alianza, 1986. Giere, Ronald N. “History and Philosophy of Science: Intimate Relationship or Marriage of Convenience?”. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24.3 (1973): 282-297. Hacking Ian. “Language, Truth and Reason”. Rationality and Relativism. Eds. Hollis y Steven Luke. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1982. 48-66. _______. Representing and Intervening. Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. _______. “Styles of Scientific Reasoning”. Post-Analytical Philosophy. Eds. John Rajchman y Cornel West. Nueva York: Columbia University Press, 1985. 145-165. _______. “Style for Historians and Philosophers”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23.1 (1992): 1-20. Hesse, Mary. Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1966. Kinzel, Katherina. “Narrative and Evidence. How Can Case Studies from the History of Science Support Claims in the Philosophy of Science?”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 49 (2015): 48-57. Kitcher, Philip. “Epistemology without history is blind”. Erkenntis 75.3 (2011): 505-524. Laudan, Larry. “Thoughts on HPS: 20 Years Later”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 20 (1989): 9-13. Martínez, Sergio y Godfrey Guillaumin, comps. Historia, filosofía y enseñanza de la ciencia. Ciudad de México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2005. Mauskop, Seymour y Tad Schmaltz, eds. Integrating History and Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012. Millman, Arthur y Carol Smith. “Darwin Use of Analogical Reasoning in Theory Construction”. Metaphor and Symbol 12.3 (1997): 159-187. McMullin, Ernan. The Inference that Makes Science. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1992. Morgan Mary y M. Norton Wise, eds. “Special issue: Narrative in Science”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 62 (2017): 1-98. Nickles, Thomas. “Beyond Divorce: Current Status of the Discovery Debate”. Philosophy of Science 52 (1985): 177-206. _______. “Remarks on the Use of History as Evidence”. Synthese 69.2 (1986): 253-266. _______. “Good Science as Bad History: From Order of Knowing to Order of Being”. The Social Dimensions of Science. Ed. Ernan McMullin. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992. 85-129. _______. “History of Science and Philosophy of Science”. Osiris 10 (1995): 139-163. _______. “Kuhn, Historical Philosophy of Science, and Case-Based Reasoning”. Configurations 6 (1998): 51-85. Pitt, Joseph. “The Dilemma of Case Studies: Toward a Heraclitean Philosophy of Science”. Perspectives on Science 9.4 (2001): 373-382. Radder, Hans. “Philosophy and History of Science: Beyond the Kuhnian Paradigm”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 28 (1997): 633-655. Rheinberger Hans-Jörg. “A Plea for a Historical Epistemology of Research”. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 43 (2012):105-111. Sauer, Tillman y Raphael Scholl, eds. The Philosophy of Historical Case-Studies. Dordrecht: Springer, 2016. Salmon, Wesley C. “Bayes's Theorem and the History of Science”. Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science. Ed. Roger H. Stuewer. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1970. 68-86. Schickore, Jutta. “More Thoughts on HPS: Another 20 Years Later”. Perspectives on Science 19.4 (2011): 453-481. Stuewer R. H., ed. Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 5. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1970. Wartofsky, Marx W. “Epistemology Historicized”. Naturalistic Epistemology: A Symposium of Two Decades. Eds. Abner Shimony y Debra Nails. Dordrecht: Springer, 1987. 357-374. Zamora Bonilla, Jesús. Cuestión de protocolo: ensayos de metodología de la ciencia. Madrid: Tecnos, 2005. _______. “La ceguera y el vacío: una mirada histórica al debate sobre relaciones entre Historia y Filosofía de la Ciencia”. Rev. Colomb. Filos. Cienc. 18.37 (2018): 53-90.
dc.rightsDerechos de autor 2018 Editorial El Bosquees-ES
dc.rightshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0es-ES
dc.sourceRevista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia; Vol 18 No 37 (2018): Special Issue: History and Philosophy of Science; 7-21en-US
dc.sourceRevista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia; ##issue.vol## 18 ##issue.no## 37 (2018): Número Especial: Historia y Filosofía de la Ciencia; 7-21es-AR
dc.sourceRevista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia; Vol. 18 Núm. 37 (2018): Número Especial: Historia y Filosofía de la Ciencia; 7-21es-ES
dc.source2463-1159
dc.source0124-4620
dc.source10.18270/rcfc.v18i37
dc.titleEditorial Noteen-US
dc.titleNota Editoriales-AR
dc.titleNota Editoriales-ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion


Ficheros en el ítem

FicherosTamañoFormatoVer

No hay ficheros asociados a este ítem.

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem