298
Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs,
Springer, 2009
8. For early science as a distinct movement, see:
Alistair Cameron Crombie, Science, Optics, and
Music in Medieval and Early Modern Thought,
London: Hambledon, 1987; Wolfgang Lefѐvre,
Jürgen Renn, Urs Schoepflin, The Power of
Images in Early Modern Science, Birkhäuser,
2003; Thomas F. Glick, Steven John Livesey,
Faith Wallis, Medieval Science, Technology and
Medicine: An Encyclopaedia, Routledge. 2005
9. See: Wesley Shrum, Joel Genuth & Ivan
Chompalov, Structure of Scientific
Collaboration, MIT Press, 2007.
10. Berlin, 1997, pp.17, 19 & 81
11. For the growing corpus of science theory see:
Larry Laudan, Progress and Its Problems:
Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth,
University of California Press, 1992; Karl
Popper, Conjecturers and Refutations: The
Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Routledge,
2002; W. Krajewski, Correspondence Principle
and Growth of Science, Springer, 2011.
12. Referred to variously as abstract, imputed,
imaginary, conceptual or invisible entities, their
problematic status within science has been
commented on by many philosophers of
science. Examples include: Anjan Chakravarty,
A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism, CUP,
2007 p.10; p.15; p.16, p.29, pp.32-33, pp 80-82;
Don Ross, James Ladyman and Harold Kincaid,
Scientific Meta physics, OUP, 2013, pp.27-28,
p.53, p.128; Emiliano Ippoliti, Heuristic
Reasoning (Studies in Applied Philosophy,
Epistemology and Rational Ethics), Springer,
2015, p.42; Evandro Agazzi and Massimo
Pauri, The Reality of the Unobservable:
Observability, Unobservability and Their
Impact on the Issue of Scientific Realism
(Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History
of Science), Springer, 2000, p.14; Bruno Latour
& Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life, Princeton
Univ Press, 1986, p.54; James Ladyman,
Understanding Philosophy of Science,
Routledge, 2002, pp.7-8, p.82, p.113, p.129, p.
196; B. Barns, Understanding Agency, Sage,
2000, p.42; Louis Caruna, Science & Virtue,
UK: Ashgate, 2006, p.83; Bernadette Bensaude-
Vincent and Jonathan Simon, Chemistry the
Impure Science, ICP, 2008, p.159, pp.206-7;
Alexander Rosenberg, The Philosophy of
Science: a Contemporary Introduction,
Routledge, 2011, p.108.
13. For examples see: Sharma, Plant Taxonomy,
India: McGraw Hill, 2013, pp.8-13; M M
Slaughter, Universal Languages, Taxonomy in
the Seventeenth Century, CIP, 1982, pp.48-64;
V Singh & D K Jain, Taxonomy of Angiosperms,
India: Rastogi Publ, 2004, pp.7-12.
14. See: Nalini Bhushan & Stuart Rosenfeld (Eds.),
Of Minds and Molecules:New Philosophical
Perspectives on Chemistry, Oxford: OUP, 2000
15. See:Helaine Selin, Encyclopaedia of the History
of Science, Technology and Medicine in Non-
Western Cultures, Klower Academic 1997,
pp.523-528; Keith Thomas, Religion and the
Decline of Magic, New York: Scribner’s, 1971;
Stuart McWilliams, Magical Thinking History,
Possibility and the Idea of the Occult,
Continuum, 2011
16. See: Kofi Kissi Dompere, Fuzziness and
Foundation of Exact and Inexact Sciences,
Springer, 2012; O Helmer & N. Rescher, On the
Epistemology of the Inexact Sciences,
Management Science, 6, Oct., 1959, pp.25-52.
17. Isaiah Berlin, The Sense of Reality: Studies in
Ideas and their History, London: Pimlico, 1996,
p.239.
18. See: Lorenzo Magnani & Claudia Casadio
(Eds), Model-Based Reasoning in Science and
Technology: Logical, Epistemological, and
Cognitive Issues (Studies in Applied
Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics),
Springer, 2016
19. For misgivings about reductionism see: Daniel
J. Amit, Modeling Brain Function: The World
of Attractor Neural Networks, Cambridge:
CUP, 1992 (esp. pp.1-3); Alexander Rosenberg,
Darwinian Reductionism: Or, How to Stop
worrying and Love Molecular Biology,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014,
Robert N. Brandon, Concepts and Methods in
Evolutionary Biology, Cambridge: CUP, 1996.
20. “to understand nature through quantitative and
analytical methods, which has served science so
well for the last three hundred or so years.”
(Fernando Espinoza, The Nature of Science:
Integrating Historical, Philosophical, and
Sociological Perspectives, Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, 2011, p.35)
21. Re the dogmatic nature of 18th century medical
teaching, see: Roy Porter, The Cambridge
History of Science: Volume 4, Eighteenth-
Century Science, CUP, 2003, pp.465-6; Andrew
Cunningham and Roger French, The Medical
Enlightenment of the Eighteenth Century
(History of Medicine), CUP, 1990; Thomas H
Broman, The Transformation of German
Medicine 1750-1820, CUP, 2002; In “the
eighteenth century, the opinions of these men
were still matters of vital concern,” (Owsei
Temkin, 1946, An Essay on the Usefulness of