Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:37:57.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientific Classics and Their Fates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Ernan McMullin
Ernan McMullin*
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The term ‘classic’ runs a risk that all our terms of approbation face in these inflationary times, the risk, that is, of losing its ability to mark off singular works of human achievement. A “classic” today might be anything from a horse-race to a hairstyle. But it was not always so. There is some debate about the origins of the term (“of the highest class”? “books for class use”?), but it long ago came to designate those works of Greek and Latin literature that for centuries shaped the education of young Western Europeans. These books were held up not only as models of literary accomplishment but also as sources of moral and social wisdom. Though they were composed in ages long past, their resonance was still felt in the present. And so the broader sense developed of a significant literary work of the past that still in one way or another speaks to us today.

Type
Part VIII. Science and Philosophy in the Classic Texts
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1994 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1994 , 1994 , pp. 266 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balme, D.M. (1987), “Teleology and Necessity”, in Gotthelf and Lennox (eds.), pp. 275-290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, J. (1964), “Aristotle's Theory of Demonstration”, Phronesis 19: 123–152.Google Scholar
Cooper, J.M. (1987), “Hypothetical Necessity and Natural Teleology”, in Gotthelf and Lennox (eds.), pp. 243-274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1981), Philosophical Papers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2 vols.Google Scholar
Finocchiaro, M. (1980), Galileo and the Art of Reasoning, Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finocchiaro, M. (1989), The Galileo Affair, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gjertsen, D. (1984), “Are There Classics of Science?” in his The Classics of Science, New York: Lilian Barber, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Gotthelf, A. and Lennox, J.G. (eds.) (1987), Philosophical Issues in Aristotle's Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, W. (1934), Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of His Development, Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Lennox, J.G. (1994), “The Disappearance of Aristotle's Biology: A Hellenistic Mystery”, Apeiron, 24: 7–24.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. (1978a), “Newton on Matter and Activity”, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. (1978b), “The Conception of Science in Galileo's Work”, in Butts, R.E. and Pitt, J.C. (eds.), New Perspectives on Galileo, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 209–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, E. (1984), “Stability and Change in Science”, New Ideas in Psychology 2: 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, E. (1990), “Conceptions of Science in the Scientific Revolution”, in Lindberg, D. and Westman, R. (eds.), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–92.Google Scholar
Randall, J.H. (1960), Aristotle, New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, A.E. (1989), “Huygens’ Traité de la Lumière and Newton's Opticks: Pursuing and Eschewing Hypotheses”, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 43: 223–246.Google Scholar
Shapiro, A.E. (1993), Fits, Passions, and Paroxysms, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Urbach, P. (1982), “Francis Bacon as a Precursor of Popper”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 33: 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wians, W. (1983), Aristotle's Method in Biology, Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Microfilms, Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar