1 resultado para Scientific method
em Universidade de Lisboa - Repositório Aberto
Filtro por publicador
- JISC Information Environment Repository (1)
- Adam Mickiewicz University Repository (1)
- AMS Tesi di Dottorato - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (1)
- AMS Tesi di Laurea - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (1)
- Aquatic Commons (1)
- Archive of European Integration (2)
- Aston University Research Archive (6)
- Avian Conservation and Ecology - Eletronic Cientific Hournal - Écologie et conservation des oiseaux: (1)
- Biblioteca Digital | Sistema Integrado de Documentación | UNCuyo - UNCUYO. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE CUYO. (1)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (9)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (BDPI/USP) (3)
- Biblioteca Digital de la Universidad Católica Argentina (1)
- BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça (5)
- Bulgarian Digital Mathematics Library at IMI-BAS (5)
- CaltechTHESIS (1)
- Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (4)
- CentAUR: Central Archive University of Reading - UK (12)
- Chinese Academy of Sciences Institutional Repositories Grid Portal (6)
- Cochin University of Science & Technology (CUSAT), India (4)
- Comissão Econômica para a América Latina e o Caribe (CEPAL) (1)
- CORA - Cork Open Research Archive - University College Cork - Ireland (1)
- Digital Commons - Michigan Tech (1)
- Digital Commons @ DU | University of Denver Research (1)
- Digital Commons at Florida International University (3)
- DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center (1)
- DRUM (Digital Repository at the University of Maryland) (1)
- Duke University (1)
- eResearch Archive - Queensland Department of Agriculture; Fisheries and Forestry (3)
- Glasgow Theses Service (1)
- Greenwich Academic Literature Archive - UK (2)
- Helda - Digital Repository of University of Helsinki (15)
- Indian Institute of Science - Bangalore - Índia (42)
- Línguas & Letras - Unoeste (1)
- Memoria Académica - FaHCE, UNLP - Argentina (3)
- Nottingham eTheses (2)
- Portal de Revistas Científicas Complutenses - Espanha (6)
- Publishing Network for Geoscientific & Environmental Data (2)
- QUB Research Portal - Research Directory and Institutional Repository for Queen's University Belfast (3)
- Queensland University of Technology - ePrints Archive (687)
- RCAAP - Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (1)
- ReCiL - Repositório Científico Lusófona - Grupo Lusófona, Portugal (2)
- Repositorio Académico de la Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica (1)
- Repositório digital da Fundação Getúlio Vargas - FGV (2)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade Estadual de São Paulo - UNESP (1)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande - FURG (1)
- Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de El Salvador (1)
- Repositório Institucional UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho" (48)
- Research Open Access Repository of the University of East London. (1)
- SAPIENTIA - Universidade do Algarve - Portugal (1)
- Scielo España (1)
- Scientific Open-access Literature Archive and Repository (1)
- SerWisS - Server für Wissenschaftliche Schriften der Fachhochschule Hannover (1)
- Universidad de Alicante (4)
- Universidad del Rosario, Colombia (2)
- Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (12)
- Universidade de Lisboa - Repositório Aberto (1)
- Universidade Federal do Pará (2)
- Universidade Técnica de Lisboa (1)
- Universitat de Girona, Spain (1)
- Universitätsbibliothek Kassel, Universität Kassel, Germany (1)
- Université de Montréal, Canada (2)
- University of Michigan (14)
- University of Queensland eSpace - Australia (4)
- University of Washington (1)
- WestminsterResearch - UK (2)
Resumo:
Stirner and Feyerabend, despite being historically a hundred and fifty years apart, seem to have been of the same mind in revolting against the methodological explaining of what cannot methodologically be explained. Stirner attempted an explanation in a more intuitive version, Feyerabend in a more sophisticated one. For both thinkers it is obviously important to sustain dissent with the assumption that method is the one and only vital promoter of scientific progress. They equally voice the opinion that, despite science itself producing inconsistencies as well as results, its proceedings nonetheless follow a certain rationale. But to codify a definite approach to phenomena or matter i.e. to establish a definite method for taking a look into things turns science into religion and scientists into believers. As a result no new insights are to be gained.