Search Results

1 - 10 of 558 items :

  • "epistemology" x
Clear All

References Aikin, Scott and J. Caleb Clanton (2010): Developing Group-Deliberative Virtues. Journal of Applied Philosophy 27 (4): 409–422. Anderson, Elizabeth (2006): The Epistemology of Democracy. Episteme 3 (2): 9–23. Anderson, Elizabeth (2008): An Epistemic Defense of Democracy: David Estlund’s Democratic Authority. Episteme 5 (1): 129–139. Anderson, Elizabeth (2011): Democracy, Public policy, and Lay Assessments of Scientific Testimony. Episteme 8 (2): 144–64. Aristotle (1998): Politics. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. Bohman, James (2006

References Bergmann, Michael (2006). Justification without Awareness: a Defense of Epistemic Externalism. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dretske, Fred (1993). Conscious Experience. Mind , New Series , Vol. 102, No. 406: 263–283. Fagin, Ronald and Halpern, Joseph Y. (1988). Belief, Awareness, and Limited Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence , 34: 39–76. Fagin, Ronald et al. (1995). Reasoning About Knowledge . Cambridge, MIT Press. Hendricks, Vincent F. and Symons, John (2006). Where’s the Bridge? Epistemology and Epistemic Logic. Philosophical Studies , 128: 137

Abstract: Keywords: THE FABULOUS 1930s IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY © 2020 Pietro Daniel Omodeo. This is an open access article licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License ( HoST - Journal of History of Science and Technology Vol. 14, no. 2, December 2020, pp. 13-49 10.2478/host-2020-0013 special issue Gramsci’s political epistemology; Lenin’s Materialism and Empiriocriticism; Bukharin’s epistemology; Marxist STS; political objectivity This contribution interprets


CLIL has attracted the attention of LSP teachers worldwide and generated much literature. As a teaching and learning tool, it is frequently referred to in pedagogy, but a lot less in the epistemology of didactics. The present contribution aims to show how CLIL is an interface between conceptual research and practical implementation but that it cannot serve as a conceptual tool in the shaping of didactics as a field of research. Instead, concepts should be understood as context-dependent; they also vary with the subject matter to which language is connected (English for law differs from English for science) and therefore need the contribution of human sciences to emerge in their own rights.

References Armstrong, D.M. 1973. Belief, Truth, and Knowledge . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ayer, A.J. 1946. Language, Truth, and Logic . London: Gollancz. Ayer, A.J. 1956. The Problem of Knowledge . London: Macmillan. Blackburn, Simon. 1996. Securing the Nots: Moral Epistemology for the Quasi-Realist. In Moral Knowledge?: New Readings in Moral Epistemology , edited by W. Sinnott-Armstrong and M. Timmons. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blackburn, Simon. 1998. Ruling Passions: A Theory of Practical Reasoning . Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gibbard

References Antony, Louise. 2006. The socialization of epistemology. In Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Studies , ed. by Robert Goodin and Charles Tilley. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Armstrong, Joshua and Stanley, Jason. 2011. Singular thoughts and singular propositions. Philosophical Studies 154(2): 205-222. Blome-Tillmann, Michael. 2009. Epistemic contextualism, subject-sensitive invariantism, and the interaction of ‘knowledge’-ascriptions with modal and temporal embeddings. Philosophical and Phenomonological Research 79(2): 315-333. Boghossian

References 1. Boldachev, A.V. Novation. Judgments in Line with the Evolutionary Paradigm, (in Russian). St. Petersburg: Publ. House of St. Petersburg University Press, 2007. 2. Popper, K. Conjectures and Refutations: the Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1962. 3. Popper, K. Epistemology Without a Knowing Subject, [in:] [6]. 4. Popper, K. Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind. First Darwin Lecture, Darwin College, Cambridge, 1977, [in:] Evolutionary Epistemology, Rationality, and the Sociology of Knowledge, eds. G. Radnitzky

? , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bird A. 2005, “Naturalizing Kuhn”, in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 105, pp. 109–27. Bogen J. Woodward J. 1988, “Saving Phenomena”, The Philosophical Review 97, pp. 303-352. Bonjour L. 2006, “Kornblith on knowledge and epistemology”, in Philosophical Studies 127, pp. 317-335. Braddon-Mitchell D., Nola R. (eds.) 2009, Conceptual Analysis and Philosophical Naturalism , MIT Press, Cambridge MA. Chandrasekharan, S. & Nersessian, N.J. 2015, “Building cognition: the construction of computational representations for

References Anscombe, G.E.M. 1957. Intention . Oxford: Blackwell. Bishop, Michael A. 2010. Why the generality problem is everybody’s problem. Philosophical Studies 151(2): 285-98. Cohen, Stewart. 2000. Contextualism and skepticism. Nous 34(1): 94-107. Engel, Pascal. 2009. Pragmatic encroachment and epistemic value. In Epistemic Value , edited by Adrian Haddock, Alan Millar, and Duncan Pritchard, Oxford University Press: 183-203. Fantl, J. and McGrath, M. 2007. On pragmatic encroachment in epistemology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75(3): 558

psicólogos. Piaget y los Meyerson”, Revista de historia de la psicología , vol. 34, n. 1, pp. 59–80. Fruteau de Laclos, F. (2014), Émile Meyerson, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Fruteau de Laclos, F. (2016), “Pour une epistemology française et la connaissance du sens commun”, Revue de métaphysique et de morale , 2, pp. 177–191. Kuhn, T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lévy-Bruhl, L. (1900) La philosophie d’Auguste Comte , Paris: Alcan. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1960) “Partout et nulle part”, Signes, Paris: Gallimard, pp