The Experts below are selected from a list of 4875 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Henrique Leitao - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the neglected early history of geology the copernican revolution as a major advance in understanding the earth reply
Geology, 2010Co-Authors: Walter Alvarez, Henrique LeitaoAbstract:Many geologists think of geology as a young science that originated about 1800, two centuries after the Copernican Revolution in astronomy and physics gave rise to modern science. We suggest that this View ignores the early history of what is now geology, and we argue that the Copernican Revolution represented not only a revolution in astronomy and physics, but also a radical change in understanding the Earth. Prior to the Copernican Revolution the concepts of “Earth” and “planet” had nothing whatsoever to do with each other, but after that revolution scientists recognized that Earth itself is one of the planets, and they rejected the Aristotelian View that Earth is made of fundamentally different material than are the Sun, stars, and planets. This was an essential step in the development of a valid science of geology, and the Copernican Revolution should therefore be considered not only an episode in the history of astronomy and physics, but as a central part of the history of geology as well.
-
The neglected early history of geology: The Copernican Revolution as a major advance in understanding the Earth
Geology, 2010Co-Authors: Walter Alvarez, Henrique LeitaoAbstract:Many geologists think of geology as a young science that originated about 1800, two centuries after the Copernican Revolution in astronomy and physics gave rise to modern science. We suggest that this View ignores the early history of what is now geology, and we argue that the Copernican Revolution represented not only a revolution in astronomy and physics, but also a radical change in understanding the Earth. Prior to the Copernican Revolution the concepts of “Earth” and “planet” had nothing whatsoever to do with each other, but after that revolution scientists recognized that Earth itself is one of the planets, and they rejected the Aristotelian View that Earth is made of fundamentally different material than are the Sun, stars, and planets. This was an essential step in the development of a valid science of geology, and the Copernican Revolution should therefore be considered not only an episode in the history of astronomy and physics, but as a central part of the history of geology as well.
Walter Alvarez - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the neglected early history of geology the copernican revolution as a major advance in understanding the earth reply
Geology, 2010Co-Authors: Walter Alvarez, Henrique LeitaoAbstract:Many geologists think of geology as a young science that originated about 1800, two centuries after the Copernican Revolution in astronomy and physics gave rise to modern science. We suggest that this View ignores the early history of what is now geology, and we argue that the Copernican Revolution represented not only a revolution in astronomy and physics, but also a radical change in understanding the Earth. Prior to the Copernican Revolution the concepts of “Earth” and “planet” had nothing whatsoever to do with each other, but after that revolution scientists recognized that Earth itself is one of the planets, and they rejected the Aristotelian View that Earth is made of fundamentally different material than are the Sun, stars, and planets. This was an essential step in the development of a valid science of geology, and the Copernican Revolution should therefore be considered not only an episode in the history of astronomy and physics, but as a central part of the history of geology as well.
-
The neglected early history of geology: The Copernican Revolution as a major advance in understanding the Earth
Geology, 2010Co-Authors: Walter Alvarez, Henrique LeitaoAbstract:Many geologists think of geology as a young science that originated about 1800, two centuries after the Copernican Revolution in astronomy and physics gave rise to modern science. We suggest that this View ignores the early history of what is now geology, and we argue that the Copernican Revolution represented not only a revolution in astronomy and physics, but also a radical change in understanding the Earth. Prior to the Copernican Revolution the concepts of “Earth” and “planet” had nothing whatsoever to do with each other, but after that revolution scientists recognized that Earth itself is one of the planets, and they rejected the Aristotelian View that Earth is made of fundamentally different material than are the Sun, stars, and planets. This was an essential step in the development of a valid science of geology, and the Copernican Revolution should therefore be considered not only an episode in the history of astronomy and physics, but as a central part of the history of geology as well.
Tim Lewens - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Species Natures: A Critique of Neo-Aristotelian Ethics
The Philosophical Quarterly, 2019Co-Authors: Tim LewensAbstract:Abstract This paper examines the neo-Aristotelian account of species natures as ‘life-forms’, which we owe to Philippa Foot, Michael Thompson and their defenders. I begin by developing two problems for their View: a problem of underdetermination and a problem generated by psychological work on ‘folk essentialism’. I move on to consider their important transcendental argument, which suggests that claims about life-forms are presupposed by all efforts to describe the organic world. In response, I sketch a neo-Kantian projectivist position, which agrees that life-forms are presupposed in these contexts, while denying that such life-forms are real. This position makes a better sense of the phenomena cited in support of the neo-Aristotelian View, while avoiding the problems raised for that View in the first half of this paper.
Patrick Todd - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Future Contingents are all False! On Behalf of a Russellian Open Future
Mind, 2016Co-Authors: Patrick ToddAbstract:There is a familiar debate between Russell and Strawson concerning bivalence and ‘the present King of France’. According to the Strawsonian View, ‘The present King of France is bald’ is neither true nor false, whereas, on the Russellian View, that proposition is simply false. In this paper, I develop what I take to be a crucial (and unnoticed) connection between this debate and a different domain where bivalence has been at stake: future contingents. On the familiar ‘Aristotelian’ View, future contingent propositions are neither true nor false. However, I argue that, just as there is a Russellian alternative to the Strawsonian View concerning ‘the present King of France’, according to which the relevant class of propositions all turn out false, so there is a Russellian alternative to the Aristotelian View, according to which future contingents all turn out false, not neither true nor false. The result: contrary to millennia of philosophical tradition, we can be open futurists without denying bivalence.
Ben Page - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Power-ing up neo-Aristotelian natural goodness
Philosophical Studies, 2021Co-Authors: Ben PageAbstract:Something is good insofar as it achieves its end, so says a neo-Aristotelian View of goodness. Powers/dispositions are paradigm cases of entities that have an end, so say many metaphysicians. A question therefore arises, namely, can one account for neo-Aristotelian goodness in terms of an ontology of powers? This is what I shall begin to explore in this paper. I will first provide a brief explication of both neo-Aristotelian goodness and the metaphysics of powers, before turning to investigate whether one can give an account of neo-Aristotelian goodness in terms of powers. I will suggest that the answer to this question is yes.