Roberto De Andrade Martins

Towards the middle of the 18th century, Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis proposed the “principle of least action” as a fundamental law of physics and as a proof of the existence of God. Samuel König and other contemporary authors criticized Maupertuis’ work. There ensued a fierce discussion concerning this subject, in which Leonhard Euler, the king Frédéric II of Prussia and Voltaire took part. This paper discusses that debate, emphasizing its extrascientific features and analyzing the interests that motivated the actions of the people involved in that episode. Key words: Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis, François Marie Arouet Voltaire, Johann Samuel König, Frédéric II – king of Prussia, principle of least action, history of physics, scientific controversies.

The sixth chapter of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species is called “Difficulties of the Theory.” In that part of his work, Darwin reveals some possible objections to his theory and attempts to provide an answer to all of them. Such a chapter was part of the first edition of the Origin of Species; therefore, the difficulties described were not reactions derived from the publication of the book. Instead, friends like Charles Lyell have probably presented some of them. Others can be found in works published before Darwin’s work, such as Natural Theology by William Paley, which argued for creationism and introduced arguments against any natural explanation of the origin of species. Many other problems dealt with in the sixth chapter were born, however, from Darwin’s own internal dialogue, his own initial doubts concerning the theory, and his anticipation of criticism, as one can gather from his manuscripts. This paper describes the main difficulties shown in the sixth chapter of the Origin of Species, providing a more detailed exposition of a few topics, and analyzing Darwin’s defense, in those cases. It also discusses some of the weak points in Darwin’s line of reasoning from a diachronic point of view.

: Suppose a scientist discovers a new, unpredicted phenomenon. How can one ascertain the causes, properties and laws of the phenomenon? How can one plan the investigation of the circumstances that affect the phenomenon, and of the effects that the new phenomenon could produce? If the phenomenon is completely unexpected and does not fit any previous theory, it is impossible to provide a theoretical prediction of its likely properties. In the empiricist tradition, therefore, the recommended method was to investigate all possibilities, because in such cases it is impossible to exclude a priori anything. William Stanley Jevons provided a clear criticism of this method. It is impossible to investigate all possibilities, because they are boundless. Is it then impossible to plan the research of unexpected new phenomena? No. Jevons pointed out an alternative. According to Jevons, a scientist confronting a new, unexpected phenomenon, should compare it to other known phenomena to establish analogies. This comparison should allow the researcher to find out one or several known phenomena similar to the new one. This paper will present and discuss Jevons’ proposal in the context of late 19th century methodology of science. Keywords: scientific method; empirical research; analogy; Jevons, William Stanley.

The focus of this paper is one of James Prescott Joule’s scientific contributions: the laws of heat production by electric currents in conductors. In 1841, the 22 years old Joule published a paper with the title “On the heat evolved by metallic conductors of electricity, and in the cells of a battery during electrolysis” where he presented an experimental study of that phenomenon and proposed two laws that were allegedly supported by his trials. On closer inspection, both his laboratory work and his inferences can be challenged. The emphasis of this article is an attempt to understand Joule’s experimental undertaking, its highpoints and shortcomings, by a detailed analysis of this specific episode and by studying the precedents of his work and subsequent advancements. It is possible to point out several serious deficiencies of that investigation, and Joule’s contemporaries, such as Edmond Becquerel and Heinrich Lenz, did criticize some of his flaws and undertook new experiments to provide a sound basis for those laws. Besides providing a historical examination of that specific episode, this article uses this case study to tackle some features of the nature of science that may contribute to scientific education.

ConclusionThe common assumption that Becquerel had no special reason to study uranium compounds in his search for substances emitting penetrating radiation cannot explain (a) Becquerel's own accounts, which refer to his choice as due to “the peculiar harmonic series of bands”; (b) Becquerel's systematic test of all uranium compounds (and metallic uranium), in contrast to his neglect of other substances; and (c) Becquerel's belief in invisible phosphorescence as an explanation of the radiation emitted by uranium compounds, even after his discovery that non-luminescent and metallic uranium also emit penetrating radiation.By comparing Becquerel's older studies of uranium to his radioactivity research, this paper has presented a reconstruction that can explain all of these points above. According to the historical evidence presented here, it is likely that Becquerel concentrated his attention on uranium and its compounds because the mechanical theory of luminescence opened up the possibility that, precisely in the case of uranium and its compounds, a violation of Stokes's law could occur, and penetrating short-wavelength radiation could be emitted through a special type of phosphorescence.

In his celebrated historic-epistemological work Identité et réalité, Émile Meyerson claimed that the scientific conservation principles were first suggested and accepted for philosophical reasons, and only afterwards were submitted to experimental tests. One of the instances he discussed in his book is the principle of mass conservation in chemical reactions. Meyerson pointed out that several authors, from Antiquity to Kant, accepted the idea of quantitative conservation of matter; and Lavoisier himself was strongly influenced by a priori ideas, using this principle instead of attempting to test it. This paper will review Meyerson’s claim and historic evidence, focusing especially the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, when the principle of mass conservation was tested in highly accurate experiments. Instead of confirming the principle, some of those experiments led to the detection of anomalies. Hans Landolt, for instance, noticed that there were some small violations of the principle. He observed mass variations of about 10−6 in chemical reactions produced in hermetically sealed glass tubes. Since Landolt was a famous chemist, his results produced a strong response. Several researchers repeated his experiments, with different results. Landolt himself improved his experiments, with a balance that could detect mass changes of 10−7. After changes of the experimental procedure, the chemical reactions did not show significant mass changes. There was not, however, any “crucial experiment” “proving” that mass was conserved. The observed anomalies were set aside mainly by theoretical reasons, after the discovery of radioactivity and the development of the theory of relativity.

This paper studies Galileo Galilei’s Trattato della sfera ovvero cosmografia, which was written before 1600. It is a geocentric astronomical treatise that follows the main structure of Johannes de Sacrobosco’s Tractatus de sphæra. This paper analyzes some peculiarities of Galileo’s treatise, comparing it to several other vernacular astronomical works of the sixteenth century and discussing its likely sources. Contrary to previous claims, we argue that Christoph Clavius’ commentary on Sacrobosco’s Sphæra cannot be regarded as its only or main influence. A likely inspiration for Galileo’s treatise is Alessandro Piccolomini’s Sfera del mondo, a work that anticipated several specific features of the Trattato della sfera. This influence is corroborated by Galileo’s copious marginal notes found in a copy of Piccolomini’s book.

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.

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.

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.