Roberto De Andrade Martins

O conceito de pseudo-ciência procura identificar propostas que têm uma aparência científica mas que não satisfazem critérios rigorosos de cientificidade. Alguns exemplos muito citados de pseudo-fenômenos estão os fatos alegados pela parapsicologia e pela astrologia. Para caracterizar a pseudo-ciência alguns autores propuseram critérios psicológicos, sociológicos ou metodológicos. O objetivo básico de uma caracterização metodológica dos pseudo-fenômenos é permitir identificar aquilo que parece existir, mas não existe. Trata-se, portanto, de uma distinção essencialmente ontológica. Este trabalho irá descrever várias tentativas de estabelecer critérios desse tipo e mostrará que nenhuma delas é satisfatória. Será apresentada uma abordagem alternativa, compatível com o caráter provisório do conhecimento científico, que permite avaliar a proposta de existência de um novo fenômeno e guiar a pesquisa, sem no entanto permitir concluir se o fenômeno existe ou não.

According to Aristotelian physics, there was a fundamental distinction between natural and violent motion. When the cause of the motion was internal to the moving body, that motion was regarded as natural. Violent motion was supposed to have an external efficient cause. It should stop as soon as this external cause ceased its action. The fall of a body was believed to have an internal cause – the very nature of the heavy body – but the motion of a projectile was supposed to be accidental and a violent one, produced by an external agent and maintained by the continuous action of the air around it. Those distinctions disappeared from physics during the 17th century. Descartes and Newton do not address those problems. However, in Galileo’s thought those distinctions were still present, and they did play a relevant role in his physics. Some central arguments presented by Galileo Galilei in the Dialogues concerning the two chief world systems depended on the characterisation of circular motion as “natural”. Considerations concerning natural or violent motion, circular and straight motions, provided a trap that led Galileo astray to ideas that seem extremely odd, from the point of view of classical mechanics. This article shows how Galileo struggled with those Aristotelian concepts when he tried to understand the nature of the motion of falling bodies.

This paper discusses the possibility of an absolute vacuum - a space without any substance. The motivation of this study is the contrast between most philosophers, up to Descartes, who stated that a vacuum was impossible, and the 17th century change of outlook, when the possibility and effective existence of the vacuum was accepted after the experiments of Torricelli and Pascal. This article attempts to show that, contrary to the received opinion, the acceptance of an ether is preferable to the acceptance of a vacuum for several reasons. First: it is impossible to provide an empirical proof of the non-existence of the ether; second, an absolute vacuum is unthinkable; third, the ether concept is useful for the understanding of physical phaenomena; and fourth, the hypothesis of an ether in apparently void spaces is useful for the future development of science. The paper also endeavours to show that no recent advance of science changed those conclusions and that no future development can change them.

This paper describes the four causes accepted by Aristotle, and then focus upon his concept of final causes, especially emphasizing its use in the study of living beings. The article discusses several difficulties in interpreting Aristotle’s teleology, such as its relation with the concept of a providential god, and the difficulty of understanding goals in processes that do not include intelligent agency. The Aristotelian ideas on final causes are highly complex, and they are widely different from those usually ascribed to the philosopher. RESUMO: Este artigo apresenta uma descrição dos quatro tipos de causas aceitas por Aristóteles, centralizando-se depois nas causas finais, focalizando principalmente seu uso no estudo dos seres vivos. Discute diversos problemas da interpretação da teleologia de Aristóteles, tal como sua relação com a ideia de um deus previdente e as dificuldades de compreensão de finalidades em processos que não envolvem agentes inteligentes. As ideias aristotélicas sobre as causas finais são altamente complexas, e muito diferentes das versões simplistas que costumam ser atribuídas ao filósofo.

Lamarck's evolutionary theory has been regarded as groundless speculation by both coeval naturalists and modern historians of science. Lamarck is usually regarded as belonging to the group of the " idéologues" – followers of Condillac, with a strong empiricist outlook. Indeed, Lamarck refers respectfully to Condillac, and in his methodological discourse presents himself as an empiricist. However, if one compares his evolutionary theory with the empiricist requirements, Lamarck's work should be dismissed as groundless – a mere metaphysical " système" – in the pejorative sense used by the followers of Condillac. There is, however, another way of looking at Lamarck's method. The analysis of his later works – specially Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres and Système analytique des connaissances positives de l'homme – shows that he did not follow an empiricist method. His point of departure is indeed metaphysical, but it is exactly the kind of metaphysics now accepted by the biological sciences: a strict physicalism, that requires that all natural phenomena be explained by natural laws. Following this requirement, Lamarck's method seems the best available solution of that time to the fundamental biological problems: the nature, origin and structure of living bodies. Lamarck's work was criticized as purely speculative and non-scientific because it was evaluated in the context of empiricism. He was not altogether clear about his method and maybe he did not realize that he was departing from the empiricist tradition. The reinterpretation of Lamarck's theory from the point of view of his non-empiricist physicalism allows a favorable evaluation of his work. RESUMO: A teoria evolucionista de Lamarck tem sido considerada como uma especulação sem fundamento, tanto por naturalistas de sua época quanto por historiadores atuais da ciência. Lamarck é usualmente considerado como pertencendo ao grupo do "idéologues" – seguidores de Condillac, com uma forte tendência empirista. De fato, Lamarck se refere com respeito a Condillac, e em seu discurso metodológico apresenta a si próprio como empirista. No entanto, se compararmos sua teoria evolucionista com as exigências empiristas, o trabalho de Lamarck deveria ser rejeitado como desprovido de fundamentos – um mero "système" metafísico – no sentido pejorativo utilizado pelos seguidores de Condillac. Há, no entanto, outro modo de considerar o método de Lamarck. A análise de seus últimos trabalhos – especialmente os livros Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres and Système analytique des connaissances positives de l'homme – mostra que ele não seguia um método empirista. Seu ponto de partida era na realidade metafísico, mas é exatamente o tipo de metafísica que é atualmente aceita pelas ciências biológicas: um fisicalismo estrito, que exige que todos os fenômenos naturais sejam explicados por leis naturais. Seguindo essa exigência, o método de Lamarck parece a melhor solução disponível naquela época para os fenômenos biológicos fundamentais: a natureza, a origem e a estrutura dos seres vivos. O trabalho de Lamarck foi criticado como puramente especulativo e não-científico porque foi avaliado no contexto do empirismo. Ele não foi totalmente claro sobre seu método, e talvez ele próprio não tivesse percebido que estava se afastando da tradição empirista. A reinterpretação da teoria de Lamarck sob o ponto de vista de seu fisicalismo não empirista permite uma avaliação positiva de seu trabalho.

This paper studies Lamarck's scientific method both from the point of view of his methodological discourse and according to his scientific praxis. Lamarck's methodology is compared to Condillac's as well as to that of the idéologues - a group in which Lamarck is usually included. The analysis of this paper shows that Lamarck's methodological discourse is very similar to Condillac's, but his scientific praxis does not follow this view. Instead of following an empiricist approach, Lamarck's work is grounded upon general metaphysical principles concerning nature. Thus, from the ideologues's point of view, Lamarck's work should have been rejected -and that is what really happened - as being a mere metaphysical system grupo no qual se costuma incluir o próprio Lamarck. Mostra-se que o discurso metodológico de Lamarck assemelha-se ao dos ideólogos; no entanto, sua prática científica não se coaduna com esse enfoque. Em vez de seguir uma abordagem empirista, a obra de Lamarck se fundamenta em princípios metafísicos gerais sobre a natureza. Sob o ponto de vista dos ideólogos, seu trabalho deveria ser rejeitado - o que de fato ocorreu - como um mero sistema metafísico - no sentido pejorativo utilizado pelos seguidores de Condillac. No entanto, o presente artigo argumenta que esse é justamente um importante e inovador aspecto da obra de Lamarck, que permitiu a eclosão do evolucionismo moderno.

There are several kinds of studies about science (metascientific): empirical studies (grounded upon historical, sociological and other factual data); formal studies (analytic studies, that is, grounded upon logical analysis, definitions, formal distinctions); and axiological studies (grounded on value analysis). Those approaches are epistemologically independent from each other, in the sense that from one of them it is impossible to draw conclusions pertaining to the others. Every normative proposal concerning science is essentially axiological, because it is associated to value judgments (what is valid or invalid in science), and it is impossible to justify norms from empirical or analytical studies. It is important, therefore, to avoid confounding those three approaches, or passing from one of them to another without due notice, because this would lead to epistemological error. In order to emphasize those distinctions, the paper proposes the names "science of science" to describe empirical studies, "scientific methodology" for axiological studies on science that are grounded on internal values, and "analytical epistemology" to refer to formal studies, that merely offer coherent alternative descriptions of science. RESUMO: Os estudos sobre o conhecimento científico (metacientíficos) podem ser de vários tipos: empíricos (baseados em dados históricos, sociológicos, etc.), formais (analíticos, ou seja, baseados em análise lógica, definições e distinções formais) e axiológicos (baseados em análise de valores). Essas três formas de abordagem são epistemologicamente independentes, no sentido de que uma delas não permite tirar conclusões sobre as outras. Toda proposta normativa sobre a ciência é essencialmente axiológica, por estar associada a juízos de valores sobre o que é válido ou não na ciência, e não se pode justificar normas a partir de estudos empíricos ou a partir de estudos analíticos. É importante, por isso, não confundir os três tipos de abordagem, nem tentar passar inconscientemente de uma para outra, pois isso levaria a falhas epistemológicas graves. Para enfatizar essas distinções, o artigo propõe os nomes "ciência da ciência" para os estudos de base empírica, "metodologia científica" para os estudos axiológicos sobre a ciência, baseados em valores internos, e "epistemologia analítica" para estudos formais, que estabeleçam meras alternativas coerentes para a descrição da ciência.

Abstract   This paper describes the early history of magnetochemistry: the search for chemical effects of magnetism in the nineteenth century. Some early researchers, such as Johann Wilhelm Ritter, attempted to reproduce with magnets the effects that had been produced by electricity and Volta’s battery. For several decades, researchers successively reported positive results and denied claims concerning the effect of magnetism in oxidation, electrolysis, reduction of metals from saline solutions, crystallisation, change of colour of vegetable tinctures and other chemical reactions. In the two last decades of the nineteenth century some effects were accepted as real, and a thermodynamic theory of the influence of magnetic fields upon chemical reactions was developed. Finally, Dragomir Hurmuzescu was able to create reproducible experiments and measured the electromotive force between two electrodes, with or without the presence of magnetic fields, confirming the existence of the phenomenon and obtaining results compatible with the theoretical predictions. Afterwards, this magnetochemical effect was accepted as real, but the effect was weak and its practical importance was negligible. The subject was gradually forgotten. Content Type Journal Article Pages 1-26 DOI 10.1007/s10698-011-9127-8 Authors Roberto de Andrade Martins, Department of Physics, State University of Paraiba, Campina Grande, PB, Brazil Journal Foundations of Chemistry Online ISSN 1572-8463 Print ISSN 1386-4238.

A considerable part of the 20th century epistemology was devoted to attempts at differentiating science from metaphysics or from non-science. Such demarcations try to establish necessary and sufficient conditions to ascribe the scientific status to a theory. However, all demarcations that were proposed conflict with scientific practice, and no proposal received general acceptance. This article suggests a new kind of approach, in which nothing is prohibited in science, but criteria for evaluating and guiding the scientific research are established through desiderata, that establish sufficient (but not necessary) conditions to ascribe a positive scientific value to any contribution. RESUMO Grande parte da epistemologia do século XX discutiu a questão de diferenciar a ciência da metafísica ou da não-ciência. Tais demarcações procuram estabelecer condições necessárias e suficientes para que se atribua o status de ciência a uma teoria. No entanto, todas as demarcações propostas conflitam com a prática científica e nenhuma recebeu aceitação geral. Este artigo sugere um novo tipo de abordagem, em que não se proibe nada na ciência, estabelecendo-se no entanto critérios que permitam avaliar e guiar o trabalho científico, através de desiderata, que determinam condições suficientes (mas não necessárias) para que algo tenha um valor científico positivo.

In the early 20th century, science was supposed to be “value free”. In 1953 Richard Rudner claimed that “the scientist qua scientist makes value judgments”, and later philosophers discussed the relations between science and values. From the 60’s onward Michael Scriven and other authors came to the conclusion that non-moral values (intrinsic or epistemic values) are required to evaluate scientific works. This paper supports this general view. However, it stresses that there are several independent scientific values, corresponding to a multi-dimensional value space, and for this reason it is commonly impossible to compare the scientific worth of two different scientific contributions. Scientific values can be used to guide and to evaluate scientific research. However, the result is not a linear succession of better and better theories, but a proliferation of different theories and hypotheses, each of them fulfilling only a few desiderata. RESUMEN: A principios del siglo XX se suponía que la ciencia era “libre de valores”. En 1953 Richard Rudner concedió que “el científico cómo científico hace juicios de valor”, y filósofos posteriores discutieron las relaciones entre la ciencia y los valores. De los años 60 hacia delante, Michael Scriven y otros autores llegaron a la conclusión que valores no-morales (valores científicos intrínsecos o epistémicos) son requeridos para evaluar trabajos científicos. El presente trabajo utiliza esta perspectiva general. Sin embargo, enfatiza que hay muchos valores científicos independientes, correspondiendo a un espacio multidimensional de valores, y por esta razón es comúnmente imposible comparar los valores científicos de dos contribuciones científicas diversas. Los valores científicos se pueden utilizar para dirigir y para evaluar la investigación científica. Sin embargo, el resultado no es una sucesión linear de teorías mejores y mejores, sino una proliferación de teorías y hipótesis diversas, y cada una de ellas satisfaz solamente algunos desiderata.

Este trabajo analiza las diferencias entre las teorías de Lorentz y Poincaré (quienes aceptaban el éter) y de Einstein, cuestionando las explicaciones comunes de los motivos por los cuales la teoría de la relatividad es preferible a la anterior. La principal diferencia entre los puntos de vista de Einstein y de Lorentz y Poincaré era de naturaleza epistemológica y no teórica. Cada uno de los enfoques tenía aspectos epistémicos positivos, pero de la misma manera les hacía falta a los dos puntos de vista determinados aspectos que estaban presentes en la otra propuesta. Por lo tanto, una de ellas no era superior a la otra. De ese modo, no había argumentos conclusivos que permitieron elegir una de ellas y rechazar a la otra.

Isometry hypotheses are propositions that assert the constancy of a specific physical magnitude of a system under prescribed conditions. This paper addresses the controversy concerning the conventionality of this type of hypotheses. It discusses several instances of isometry hypotheses and it is shown that experimental facts can be invoked to criticise (or "refute") isometry hypotheses, just as other types of hypotheses. This proves that isometry hypotheses, and the choices of measurement standards that are grounded in such hypotheses, are not merely conventional.

This paper studies Lamarck's scientific method both from the point of view of his methodological discourse and according to his scientific praxis. Lamarck's methodology is compared to Condillac's as well as to that of the idéologues - a group in which Lamarck is usually included. The analysis of this paper shows that Lamarck's methodological discourse is very similar to Condillac's, but his scientific praxis does not follow this view. Instead of following an empiricist approach, Lamarck's work is grounded upon general metaphysical principles concerning nature. Thus, from the ideologues's point of view, Lamarck's work should have been rejected -and that is what really happened - as being a mere metaphysical system grupo no qual se costuma incluir o próprio Lamarck. Mostra-se que o discurso metodológico de Lamarck assemelha-se ao dos ideólogos; no entanto, sua prática científica não se coaduna com esse enfoque. Em vez de seguir uma abordagem empirista, a obra de Lamarck se fundamenta em princípios metafísicos gerais sobre a natureza. Sob o ponto de vista dos ideólogos, seu trabalho deveria ser rejeitado - o que de fato ocorreu - como um mero sistema metafísico - no sentido pejorativo utilizado pelos seguidores de Condillac. No entanto, o presente artigo argumenta que esse é justamente um importante e inovador aspecto da obra de Lamarck, que permitiu a eclosão do evolucionismo moderno

Einstein knew and accepted some philosophical ideas similar to Bridgman's operationalism, at the time when he developed the theory of relativity. It is possible to detect the influence of those ideas both in the special and the general theories. Some of the basic steps taken by Einstein were essentially operationalistic: they could not be justified without epistemological principles of that kind. The common opinion is held that the special theory of relativity embodied a complete and coherent operational elucidation of physical magnitudes. This paper, however, points out some instances of physical magnitudes used in special relativity – such as the force that acts upon a moving body, its mass and its temperature – that could not be measured. It is claimed that this shows an early empistemological inconsistency in Einstein's work. RESUMO: Einstein conhecia e aceitava idéias filosóficas aparentadas ao operacionalismo de Bridgman na época em que desenvolvia a teoria da relatividade. Pode-se detectar essa influência nas teorias especial e geral da relatividade. Alguns dos passos básicos de Einstein foram essencialmente operacionalistas. Assim, é comum a opinião que supõe ter sido completamente efetuada, na teoria especial, de modo coerente, a elucidação operacional das grandezas físicas. Neste artigo, porém, apresentam-se exemplos de grandezas físicas utilizadas na relatividade especial – como a força que age sobre um corpo em movimento, sua massa e sua temperatura – que não eram mensuráveis. Isso revela uma inconsistência epistemológica no trabalho inicial de Einstein.

This work compares the views of René Descartes and Isaac Newton on the nature of gravitation and the possibility of direct action at a distance. In his early writings, Newton tried to find mechanical explanations of gravitation, but could not find any acceptable model. For that reason he preferred to avoid any mechanical explanation. He admitted that the existence of gravitation could be justified by induction, and used it to explain and to predict several phenomena, although gravitation itself was not explained. Descartes, on the other side, tried to explain gravity and the motion of planets using a mechanical model that accepted the existence of vortices of invisible matter. He criticized authors of his time, such as Roberval, who tried to introduce action at a distance. Descartes argued that this would require that brute matter should be endowed with soul and intelligence. This article analyses the arguments of several authors (before and after Descartes) and concludes that Descartes' criticism of action at a distance is valid. RESUMO: Este trabalho discute as posições de René Descartes e Isaac Newton frente à natureza da gravitação e à possibilidade de ações diretas à distância. Newton procurou inicialmente explicações mecânicas da gravitação, porém, não encontrando nenhum modelo aceitável, preferiu não propor nenhuma explicação. Admitindo que a existência da gravitação era justificada pela indução, ele a utilizou para explicar e prever muitos fenômenos, sem que ela própria fosse, no entanto, explicada. Descartes, por sua vez, tentou explicar a gravidade e os movimentos dos planetas a partir de um modelo mecânico de um vórtice de matéria invisível, criticando duramente autores de sua época que, como Roberval, tentaram introduzir a idéia de ação à distância, pois isso exigiria atribuir-se alma e inteligência à matéria bruta. Estudando os argumentos de vários outros autores anteriores e posteriores a Descartes, o artigo defende a posição de Descartes.

The mathematical or theoretical approach to the theory of measurement (opposed to the operational approach) is usually accepted by philosophers, at least in its general lines. Some recent criticimsms against this theory can be answered by qualifying the requirements of the theoretical approach as "desiderata", not as strict impositions or prohibitions. Besides, it is shown that the use of this approach is instrumental in creating mathematically simple quantitative laws and in allowing the development of a "scientific intuition" concerning the relevant phenomena. RESUMO: Os filósofos geralmente aceitam pelo menos as idéias gerais da abordagem matemática ou teórica da teoria da mensuração. Essa abordagem opõe-se ao operacionalismo. Algumas críticas recentes contra a abordagem teórica podem ser respondidas qualificando-se as normas que ela propõe como "desiderata", e não como imposições ou proibições estritas. Além disso, mostra-se que o uso dessa abordagem ajuda a criar leis quantitativas matematicamente simples, e permite o desenvolvimento de um tipo de "intuição científica" sobre os fenômenos relevantes.

This paper addresses the context of emergence, development, and current status of the use of history and philosophy of science in science education in Brazil. After a short overview of the three areas (history of science, philosophy of science, and science education) in Brazil, the paper focuses on the application of this approach to teaching physics, chemistry, and biology at the secondary school level. The first Brazilian researches along this line appeared more consistently in the decade of 1970. From 1980 onwards, the importance of this approach became widely accepted, and the subject became a common theme of dissertations and theses, appearing in conferences and educational journals. Since 1998, the use of history and philosophy of science was included among the government recommendations for secondary school science teaching in Brazil. Nowadays, this is an important line of research in graduate programs on science and mathematics education. However, the actual use of this approach in secondary education is still a desideratum.