Yasmin Haddad

Journal for General Philosophy of Science

Demystifying Downward Causation in Biology

揭秘生物学中的下行因果关系

Abstract According to Kant’s philosophy of geometry, Euclidean geometry is synthetic a priori . The advent of non-Euclidean geometries proved this position at least problematic, if not obsolete. However, based on Nash’s embedding theorems we show that a weaker notion of preeminence supports the view that Euclidean geometry, even though not strictly a priori , enjoys a more fundamental status than non-Euclidean geometries.

Mircea Dumitru

Liviu Ornea

On the Preeminence of Euclidean Geometry: Nash’s Embedding Theorems

论欧几里得几何的卓越性：纳什嵌入定理

Jonas Lipski

Transaction Costs Economics and Good Scientific Practice

交易成本经济学与良好的科学实践

This paper presents the results of an empirical study following up on Mizrahi (2021). Using the same methods of text mining and corpus analysis used by Mizrahi (2021), we test empirically a philosophical account of scientific progress that Mizrahi (2021) left out of his empirical study, namely, the so-called functional-internalist account of scientific progress according to which the aim or goal or scientific research is to solve problems. In general, our results do not lend much empirical evidence in support of the problem-solving model of scientific progress over the other philosophical accounts of scientific progress (namely, the epistemic, noetic, and semantic accounts of scientific progress) tested in Mizrahi (2021) and in this follow-up study. Of all the subjects in the JSTOR database we have tested in this study, however, Mathematics is an interesting exception as far as the problem-solving model of scientific progress is concerned. For, in Mathematics alone, we have found that there is significantly more talk of the aims and/or goals of research in terms of solutions than in terms of truth, knowledge, or understanding.

Moti Mizrahi

What Is the Basic Unit of Scientific Progress? A Quantitative, Corpus-Based Study

科学进步的基本单位是什么？基于语料库的定量研究

Mirko Farina

Categorizing Phenotypic Plasticity: An Analysis of Its Role in Human Cognitive Evolution

分类表型可塑性：对其在人类认知进化中作用的分析

There has been a resurgence between two closely related discussions concerning modern science funding policy. The first revolves around the coherence and usefulness of the distinction between basic and applied science and the second concerns whether science should be free to pursue research according to its own internal standards or pursue socially responsible research agendas that are held accountable to moral or political standards. In this paper, I argue that the distinction between basic and applied science, and the concomitant debate about freedom and social responsibility, require revision. I contend that the distinction can only be maintained in cases of urgent science. I go on to elucidate the notion of urgent science using a case study from research of the climate refugee crisis.

Jamie Shaw

Revisiting the Basic/Applied Science Distinction: The Significance of Urgent Science for Science Funding Policy

重新审视基础科学与应用科学的区别：紧急科学对科学资助政策的意义

Michael T. Hicks

Andreas Hüttemann

Martin Voggenauer

Third Conference of the GWP (2019)

第三届GWP会议（2019年）

Efraim Wallach

Time Will Tell: Against Antirealism About the Past

时间会证明：反对过去反实在论

Andrzej Łukasik

Marcin Gileta

Sebastian Kozera

Wojciech Sady: The Structure of the Relativity and Quantum Revolution in Physics (Struktura rewolucji relatywistycznej i kwantowej w fizyce)

Wojciech Sady: 物理学中相对论和量子革命的结构（Struktura rewolucji relatywistycznej i kwantowej w fizyce）

Abstract In “Should We Strive to Make Science Bias‑Free? A Philosophical Assessment of the Reproducibility Crisis”, I argue that the problem of bias in science, a key factor in the current reproducibility crisis, is worsened if we follow Heather Douglas and Kevin C. Elliott’s advice and introduce non-epistemic values into the evidential assessment of scientific hypotheses. In their response to my paper, Douglas and Elliott complain that I misrepresent their views and fall victim to various confusions. In this rebuttal I argue, by means of an examination of their published views, that my initial interpretation of their work is accurate and that, in their hands, science is generally prone to deviations from truth.

Robert Hudson

Rebuttal to Douglas and Elliott

对道格拉斯和埃利奥特的反驳

《一般科学哲学杂志》是一个讨论有关科学哲学的各种态度的论坛。它的主题是个别科学的哲学基础，尤其是方法论、本体论、认识论、人类学和伦理学基础。特别强调将自然科学、文化科学和技术科学都纳入哲学语境，在这种语境中，科学哲学当前问题的历史前提和条件也被纳入讨论。 JOURNAL FOR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 成功地试图充当一个论坛，弥合不同科学之间的鸿沟，特别是自然科学、文化科学和社会科学。其目的之一是讨论和对比个别科学的共同以及不同的具体方法论和哲学基础，同时考虑到科学哲学的所有当前相关立场。近年来，通过考虑科学的历史维度，对当前科学哲学的问题有了相当大的了解。这就是为什么未来将更加努力地整合历史和系统考虑。该杂志包含：文章讨论报告个别国家科学哲学的现状回顾科学史和科学哲学领域主要期刊的参考书目。该杂志吸引了哲学家，尤其是科学哲学家，以及自然、文化、社会和技术科学领域的学者，他们有兴趣了解其学科的哲学含义并受到其他领域的方法、领先思想、概念和理论的转移。自2015年起，JOURNAL FOR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE将通过EDITORIAL MANAGER系统在线接受投稿。鼓励作者在向期刊投稿时使用这种格式，以确保您的文章得到及时处理。

The Journal for General Philosophy of Science serves as a forum for discussing various perspectives on the philosophy of science. Its focus includes the philosophical foundations of individual sciences, particularly in terms of methodology, ontology, epistemology, anthropology, and ethics. The journal emphasizes the integration of natural sciences, cultural sciences, and technological sciences within a philosophical context, addressing the historical premises and conditions of current issues in the philosophy of science. It successfully acts as a bridge between different scientific disciplines, especially natural sciences, cultural sciences, and social sciences. One of its aims is to discuss and compare the commonalities and differences in the specific methodologies and philosophical foundations of individual sciences, while considering all relevant positions in the philosophy of science. In recent years, a significant understanding of current issues in the philosophy of science has emerged through the consideration of the historical dimensions of science. Therefore, there will be a greater effort in the future to integrate historical and systematic considerations. The journal includes articles discussing the current state of the philosophy of science in various countries, reviews of the history of science, and bibliographies of major journals in the field of science and philosophy. It attracts philosophers, especially those focused on the philosophy of science, as well as scholars from the fields of natural, cultural, social, and technological sciences who are interested in the philosophical implications of their disciplines and are influenced by methodologies, leading ideas, concepts, and theories from other fields. Since 2015, the Journal for General Philosophy of Science has accepted submissions online through the EDITORIAL MANAGER system. Authors are encouraged to use this format when submitting to ensure timely processing of their articles.

《Journal for General Philosophy of Science》是一个讨论科学哲学各种观点的论坛。该期刊的主题包括个别科学的哲学基础，特别是方法论、本体论、认识论、人类学和伦理学基础。期刊特别强调将自然科学、文化科学和技术科学纳入哲学的语境中，讨论科学哲学当前问题的历史前提和条件。期刊成功地充当了一个论坛，弥合不同科学之间的鸿沟，尤其是自然科学、文化科学和社会科学。其目的之一是讨论和比较个别科学的共同点和不同点，特别是在具体方法论和哲学基础方面，同时考虑到科学哲学的所有相关立场。近年来，通过考虑科学的历史维度，科学哲学的当前问题得到了更深入的理解。因此，未来将更加努力地整合历史和系统的考量。该期刊包含：讨论个别国家科学哲学现状的文章、科学史的回顾以及科学哲学领域主要期刊的参考书目。该期刊吸引了哲学家，尤其是科学哲学家，以及自然、文化、社会和技术科学领域的学者，他们对其学科的哲学含义感兴趣，并受到其他领域的方法、思想、概念和理论的影响。自2015年起，《Journal for General Philosophy of Science》通过EDITORIAL MANAGER系统在线接受投稿。鼓励作者在向期刊投稿时使用这种格式，以确保文章得到及时处理。

Journals	Journal for General Philosophy of Science
ISSN	0925-4560, 1572-8587
h-index	20
Journal Impact	1.33
Quartiles(Global)	HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE(Q2)
Quartiles(China)	哲学(2区)哲学科学史与科学哲学(3区)