What is science?
Some viewpoints from the perspective
of the philosophy of science
If you want to understand, if you want to come
to a picture of what science is, what knowledge is, it could be a good
start to try to become clear about the general content of the concept.
activities are today characterized as "Science!", while other activities
are just as definitely characterized as "Pseudoscience!", maybe without
the one making the judgment always having made it clear to himself what
he really means with the words he is using. Especially when you try to
come closer to an understanding of what "an anthroposophically fertilized
art of healing" could mean, but also "anthroposophical natural science"
in general, it becomes important to become clear about the different aspects
of the concept and the problems with which it is connected.
THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF SCIENCE
Every scientific activity is characterized by
two partial activities
is some form of observation/perception. It can take place directly, through
the senses, somewhat more indirectly via some form of an, in one or another
respect sense improving instrument like a microscope, a telescope or stethoscope,
or even more indirectly via some detecting instrument like a Geiger counter,
an electrocardiograph or an X-ray apparatus (Harré 1976).
other part is some form of thought activity. It "surrounds" and penetrates
the observation/perception; A more or less conscious thought activity takes
place as an introduction to the observation. It directs the attention in
a special direction, "chooses" observations, steps somewhat back during
the direct moment of perception/observation, to dominate once more after
the direct moment of perception/observation.
thought activity distinguishes between different parts of that which is
observed/perceived, gives them names or makes a more specific conceptual
analysis of them, it may also quantify them and then relates them to each
other, logically or mathematically.
far, most people who have given the problem a thought would probably agree.
A "CULTIVATED"; CUT CONCEPT OF SCIENCE
But if you want to relate the concept to the
rich flora of activities that are today termed "science" and get any help
to see what they have in common, you have to specify the concept a step
you look at what is today termed science, you find that only certain types
of perception and certain types of conceptual formulations are permitted
to use in connection with activities that in a more strict sense are characterized
far as perceptions are concerned, a number of different types of
instrumental perceptions dominate. Different forms of more direct sense
perceptions have a more ambiguous status. If you continue to perceptions
of different forms of inner, psychic states; states of the soul, you have
come to a type of perception with a very dubious status, to put it mildly,
as something on which to base scientific knowledge. When you come to perceptions
of a more spiritual nature, you have passed outside the border surrounding
those types of perceptions that are discussed.
the conceptual side, spatially oriented concepts of a mechanical
character dominate. They should preferably relate to something that is
quantifiable and it is very satisfying if the quantified perceptions (especially
when one of the not exact sciences is concerned) have been chosen in a
random way, exist in a great number and have to be put through a computer
program to make it possible to describe the results with the help of a
mathematical model, or to make it possible to point to more definite connections
(significant correlations) between factors that you otherwise don't quite
understand how the are related to each other.
has this situation come about?
THE "PARADIGM" CONCEPT
In 1962, the historian and philosopher of science,
Kuhn, formulated the concept of "paradigm", to make it possible to
understand how scientists work and why, at different times in history,
they have chosen a specific way to describe a phenomenon that would otherwise
be difficult to understand, why they have chosen observations of certain
aspects of the phenomenon and certain types of models to describe it, when
other observations and models might have been just as good.
concept is a summarizing term for those factors that direct and put a limit
to how you are permitted to work within a group of researchers and what
is understood as "science" and "not-science" within that group.
the theory of science in Sweden you today (1980) find a distinction being made
between at least six such factors. They are: a definite picture of the
world, a specific concept of what science is, a special ideal
of science, a number of aesthetic ideals, a certain ethic
also a certain "self perspective"; an opinion of the role of the
researcher in research (Törnebohm 1974, Wallén 1974, Lindström
will be more clear later, a definite concept of matter also
plays a very definite role as a paradigmatic factor.
first glance the concept of paradigm may seem somewhat bewildering (Mastermann
in 1970 pointed to 21 senses in which Kuhn used the term), but it becomes
clearer if you look at it as a way to describe how every question, problem
and hypothesis that you formulate during the daily experimental research,
independently of if you are conscious of it or not, is connected with a
more or less explicit position in relation to basic philosophical problems.
With the paradigm concept the basic philosophical problems have become
visible again in science, but now related to empirical scientific research.
makes it possible to characterize different groups of paradigms in a broader
perspective, from the point of view of how they are related to the questions
that have been discussed by philosophers for a number of centuries, the
basic questions concerning the nature of reality (ontology), the nature
of knowledge (epistemology) and the questions of the nature of values ("practical
also makes it possible to start to try to understand and characterize the
relation between the more natural-science oriented medicine of today
and the more spiritual-science oriented art of healing that exists
today as anthroposophical medicine.
||In the theory of knowledge
|Questions of knowledge
||Concept/picture of science
|Questions of value
|Questions of reality
||Picture of matter
|Picture of (wo-)man/"Self perspective"
The most basic orientation of a paradigm is determined
by the picture of reality that comes to expression in its "world picture".
Here you find a dominant orientation towards an "idea"-pole during the
whole period of Greek science, with Aristotle (left) as the all
overshadowing character, all through the Middle Ages and the time of scholasticism.
As part of a reaction against scholasticism you thereafter find a growing
reorientation of the interest in the direction of the more spatial-material
side of reality, that then comes to blossom with modern natural science.
description is modified by wefts of more "matter"-oriented paradigms (with
Leucippus, Democritus (right), Strato, Epicurus and others) (Farrington
1965) during the first period and by more "idea"-oriented wefts during
the latter period (with among others the whole natural-philosophy oriented
scientific tradition) (Eriksson 1969), but this does not change the main
"FUNCTIONALISTS" AND "PHYSICALISTS"
With the idea-oriented, "idealistic" reality-orientation
of science from its first beginning in Greece up to and on through the
time of scholasticism, as also with the following "materialistic" reality-orientation
of science you also find connected specific positions in relation to the
questions of what matter is and what knowledge is.
and Goodfield (1964) distinguish between three different polarized fields
in which the conceptual understanding of matter has been moving through
history. They are the polarized field between a more organic and
a more mechanistic conception of matter, between a more functionally
a more structurally oriented view of matter and between more "continuistic"
and more atomistic opinions on the nature of matter.
is not difficult to see an inner connection between an organic, a functional
and a continuistic oriented conception of matter as different expressions
of a common, underlying "idealistic" oriented understanding of reality,
even though the connection has not always been unambiguous in all cases
(different researchers have not always been consequent). It is also those
aspects that dominate all research into the nature of matter up to and
partly also after the time of scholasticism.
is also not difficult to see a more mechanistic, structurally and atomistic
oriented conception of matter as three different expressions of an underlying,
in a more proper sense "materialistically" oriented understanding and conception
of reality. This conception has, as mentioned earlier, its proponents already
during the time of the early Greek science, but lives on more in seclusion
to the time following the scholastic period.
historian of science Northrop also distinguishes, but from a somewhat different
perspective, between a "functionalistic" (Aristotelian) and
a "physicalistic" theory of nature as two of three basic theories
of nature during the period of Greek science (ref by Törnebohm 1977).
The two terms generally coincide with what here has been described as an
"idealistic" and a "materialistic" view of reality. We will return to the
third theory of nature later.
VIEW OF KNOWLEDGE
With the two opinions/views of reality and the
respectively connected opinions/views of matter you also find connected
definite points of view on the problem of knowledge.
view of knowledge as a paradigmatic factor has two components (according
to Törnebohm). One is a more theoretically oriented part; "view of
science". The other, termed "science ideal", refers to that science, which
within a paradigm is considered to be the best expression/reflection of
what science "is" and should be.
is most common among non-physicists today to point to "physics" as a science
ideal, whereby they normally have an inner picture of classical physics,
as it looked during the first part of the 19th century (neither within
the natural scientifically oriented tradition of medicine nor within the
theory of science one has forgiven Planck and Einstein that they popped
up during the 20th century and confused the concepts).
understand the more theoretical part of the problem of knowledge, it is
possible to take the general concept of science as a starting point.
pursue scientific research with among other goals that of attaining knowledge.
Knowledge can be characterized as "a summarizing description of perceptions/observations
in a conceptual or mathematical form". But let us look at man(/woman) to
the problem better.
human beings we have experiences. We make observations and form concepts,
ideas and judgments. At our disposal we have four senses, more bound to
organs localized in the head; sight, hearing, smell and taste, and a fifth
sense, more "spread out" over the whole body; touch.
"PRIMARY" AND "SECONDARY" QUALITIES
How do people make use of the human senses in
the "physicalistic" and the "functionalistic" research traditions?
both traditions one distinguishes between what are termed "primary" and
"secondary" qualities (Marti 1974). With the term "primary qualities" one
referred to the unchangeable qualities of reality as such. The term "secondary
qualities" referred to those qualities that man experiences via the senses,
the changes of which could be understood as the result of changes in the
relation between the unchangeable, "primary" qualities. On this point one
finds agreement between the two traditions.
when asked what is "primary" and what is "secondary" the answers differ.
"the physicalists" it is the spatial qualities, passively experienced
by sight, that one ascribes to the indivisible building stones of matter,
atoms", (these of course have been replaced by ever
smaller (elementary) particles with the developing research) that one
experiences as most real. To them belong extension
("fullness"), form, size, position in space and the state of movement
rest. As "secondary" qualities one counted the other half of sight
color, as also the other sense impressions; sound, smells, tastes and
"functionalists" have an opposite orientation. They take their starting
point, not in a part of the sight experience, but in the most opposite
sense; the touch sense and the active experience of touch (Eld-Sandström
1971). Here they distinguish between degrees of two basic touch qualities;
warmth and humidity with the extremes hot-cold and warm-dry. These four
(two) basic qualities are however considered to be "secondary" in relation
to the four "primary" qualities "Fire", "Air", "Water" and "Earth"; "the
elements", approximately corresponding to the four states of matter:
"plasma", "gas", "fluid" and "solid".
is interesting that one meant that each of the elements only could be experienced
by a simultaneous experience from two directions; via two of the the basic
secondary qualities: simultaneous dryness and warmth for "Fire", simultaneous
wetness and coldness for "Water", warmth and humidity for "Air" and coldness
and dryness for "Earth".
division of the touch qualities into warm-cold and humid-dry can seem somewhat
confusing against the background of the richness of the different touch
experiences that one can have as an experiencing subject.
it is interesting, if you see it in relation to the fact that in the special
touch-sense in the head; taste, one finds a differentiation into four basic
types of experiences; sweet, sour, bitter and salty, in spite of the fact
that the taste buds for the different tastes do not differ anatomically
from one another in any obvious or principal way.
the Chinese culture, a corresponding doctrine of the elements was developed
at about the same time as it was developed in the Greek culture (6th-4th
the "idealistic" period of science one built the world picture on the basis
of the doctrine of the elements, just as one, during the following "materialistic"
period of science has put much energy into the work of building a consistent
world picture, based on the idea of the atom.
TWO SIDES OF REALITY, OR THREE?
the experience of reality of the physicalists had its roots in a thought-experience
(no one probably meant that he had seen the atoms with his own eyes during
the 5th-4th century BC), the reality-experience of the functionalists had
its roots in an experience of the will, the touch. While the physicalists
look more at the possible static aspects of matter, the functionalists
look more at the possible dynamic states of matter.
Northrop also characterizes a third basic theory of nature during the period
of Greek science.
the physicalists the ultimate reality appears to be an infinite number
of indivisible bodies in space. The functionalists look upon the four elements
(or five, really, as one also counted with a "heavenly" element; the "quintessence")
as being the same ultimate reality.
two opinions now stream together in a third theory of nature, cultivated
by the Pythagorean-Platonic tradition.
one fuses the idea of the atom with the idea of the elements, by pointing
to the five regular polyhedrons, the five "platonic" bodies, as the real,
ideal Ur-atoms, each of which was understood as an exact, geometric expression
of one of the elements (Plato 1971, Lossee 1972) (picture coming soon).
If one should point to something as "primary" qualities to the Pythagoreans-Platonists,
except the Creator and the two types of triangles (right-angles with equal
or unequal legs) that he used to create the platonic bodies, it should
be the basic, whole numbers and the relations between the whole numbers
that come to expression in the "harmonies of heaven". As "secondary" quality
the hearing experience stands out as the most basic.
original Pythagorean (Pythagoras above, right) tradition, with its
more rational-mathematical form, had its base in the school in Croton in
the south of Italy during the 6th-5th century BC Later, during the 5th-4th
century BC it was developed in a more artistic-poetic direction by Plato
in his school in Academeia in Athens (picture above, left, from The
Academy by Raphael).
THE SENSES, THE ELEMENTS AND THE SCIENTIFIC
If you look at the picture you thereby come to,
you see that it opens the way to a possible understanding of not only the
sense-organism as such, but also the "roots" of the basic ontological traditions.
strikes you is that the senses display the same relation to each other
as the elements with - when the four senses bound to organs in the head
are concerned - sight and taste as the basic polarity and the hearing and
smelling as two intermediate senses. The more "spread out" sense, touch
- as a more totally encompassing (heavenly) sense - displays the same form
of inner relation to taste (as the touch sense in the head), as the "Quint-essence"
connection with half of the sight experience, the purely spatial qualities,
develops the atom idea and the "physicalism", that constitutes one of the
two pillars upon which modern "Natural science" rests.
connection with two willfully experienced touch qualities, warmth and humidity
develops the "element-idea" and the Aristotelian functionalism, that constitutes
one of the two pillars upon which modern "Spiritual science" rests.
both traditions also rest on a second pillar each.
connection with the hearing experience develops the Pythagorean, mathematical
tradition, that constitutes the second pillar, upon which modern "Natural
science" rests. Out of the Pythagorean inspiration this tradition developed
not only a musically based understanding of cosmos, but also the understanding
of the five regular spatial "platonic" bodies as the pure mathematical
expressions of the elements and of the natural numbers as "Ur-wesen". (Rudolf
Steiner (1920) from a more Aristotelian perspective points to other roots
of the mathematical processes in man, that I will not discuss here).
a possible inner consequence of this picture you are confronted with the
question of the smelling experience as the "basis" for the platonic tradition.
This may at first seem absurd, but appears in a new light when you see
that the olfactory ("smelling") part of the brain is that part from which
the cerebrum, which constitutes the physical basis for higher thinking
in man, has developed.
platonic tradition constitutes the second pillar, upon which the tradition
of "Spiritual science" rests.
"Natural scientific tradition" of today has, in its essence, been
developed in cooperation between the "atomists" and the "Pythagoreans-mathematicians".
The "Spiritual scientific tradition" has been developed on the basis
of the "idealistic tradition" in cooperation between the "Aristotelians"
and the "Platonists". In this perspective you see that they
appear as mirrors of each other, that in two ordered ways reflect the experiences
of the the four (or five) basic experiences of reality in wo/man.
also see that the opposition and conflict between the "natural scientific"
and the more "spiritual scientifically" oriented medical traditions in
a deeper sense appears as an expression of the difference between the perspectives
you come to when you develop a thought-sight experience or a will-touch
experience in a too one-sided way.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MECHANISTIC WORLD PICTURE
Different scientists today often and gladly refer
to the Aristotelian concept of matter as "speculative" (for example Wagner
1972) and the physicalistic concept of matter as more "scientific".
description shows how much more the functionalistic description of matter
corresponds to what you experience with the senses. It is also more correct
in the deeper sense of the word to use the term "speculative" to describe
the atomistic concept of matter during the whole period from the early
Greek, over the Alexandrine, the Arabic and the scholastic period of science,
all the way up to the 19th century, as it remained a purely theoretical
idea during the whole period, without the possibility of connecting it
more directly to a specific empirical phenomenon.
became possible at first at the end of a long development, where first
the structural, the mathematical and the mechanistic idea had to show their
Important milestones on the way were the "De humani corporis fabrica, libri
septem", finished in 1543 by the then 28 year old Andreas Vesalius (left),
"New astronomy with commentaries on the movement of Mars" (1609) and "Epitome
Astronomiae" (1618) by Kepler
and "Dialogo sopra i duo massima sisterni del mundo" (Dialogue concerning
the two most important world systems) (1633) by Galilei.
it is only, for the first time with the help of the 42 year old John Dalton
that the idea of the atom comes all the way down to earth, with his book
"A New System of Chemical Philosophy", published in 1808, where he attaches
the idea to the fact that chemical substances join with each other in proportions
of whole numbers, and to the fact that different gases expand to the same
extent when heated.
development within biology takes a parallel course to that within chemistry
and physics, with the opinion of the cell as the "atom of life" becoming
more general during the first part of last century, with the 29 year old
Theodor Schwann being the first person to give an adequate description
of the theory of cells (1839).
research into the atomic aspect of matter and the life processes then developed
fast during the 19th century. The kinetic theory of gases, the spectral
analysis of light and the invention of the "mercury-ray-pump" make it possible
to investigate the phenomenon of electrical discharge in highly diluted
gases between 1856 and 1859, in a way that leads to a more consciously
formulated theoretical atomism (Martin 1961).
At about the same time the 36 year old Rudolf Virchow (right, somewhat
older) formulates his cellular pathology in the field of medicine ("Die
Cellularpathologie in ihrer Begründung auf physiologische Gewebslehre")
(1858), the theory that all diseases have their roots in pathological changes
in individual cells of the diseased organism.
an "idealistic" science, had reached a certain height during the time of
scholasticism. Now, during the 19th century, a mechanistic world picture,
reaches its high point.
with the turn of the century and the first three decades of this century,
the situation changes in a dramatic way.
THE CONCEPT OF MATTER TODAY
The discovery of radioactivity by Becquerel in
1896, the quantum theory, formulated by Planck in 1901 and the acceptance
of the general theory of relativity, formulated by Einstein in 1916 led
to radical reformulations of the theory of atoms and classical physics.
Among other things one had to give up the ideas of
The atom as the smallest, indivisible unity of matter
The unchangeable material identity of atoms and
The principle that it should be possible (in theory at least) to calculate
and predict exactly the behavior of single atoms.
their place came, among other things, the principle of complementarity,
mathematically formulated by de Broglie in 1925, that says that matter
in some cases can appear as a "ring" that streams through the room (space),
while in other cases it is better to describe it from the aspect of a particle-model
of matter, and that the way it "chooses" to appear depends upon the limit
conditions, the experimental limitations, you give it for its appearance.
principle is the uncertainty-principle of Heisenberg, that specifies the
limit for how exactly you can describe certain pairs of aspects of atomic
third important discovery has been that the law of the principle of conservation
of matter and energy is valid only as a statistical mean by elementary-particle
processes, and that it is sometimes possible for "elementary particles"
to "borrow" together more energy than there is really available at the
moment, to "use" it for some not energy-consuming purpose, and then let
the energy coming from "nowhere" disappear into "nowhere" again.
is left of the original idea of material atoms, as the smallest building
stones of matter has become "a mathematical scheme for the calculation
of the probability of observing particle-like phenomena" (Unger 1952).
thereby remains of the materially conceived atoms of the mechanistic world
picture is, once again, "only" mathematical structures, even though in
a more developed form (than that described by Plato).
THE PROBLEM OF KNOWLEDGE IN A NEW LIGHT
The investigation of matter has thereby led to
a dissolving of the concept of matter in a way that has shown the impossibility
of basing the description of reality in an ultimate, unchangeable, "objective"
and "material" reality. With the principle of complementary and the uncertainty
relation of Heisenberg the investigating subject has taken its place, the
one who formulates the questions and sets the limits for the form of the
answers, as the center of the research process.
the perspective of the theory of knowledge one also during the second part of the 20th century
finds a severe criticism of the thesis of the subjectivity of the "secondary"
qualities in relation to the "primary" qualities, as described by the "physicalistic"
tradition, (Hegge 1957, 1975, Naess 1974).
"physicalistic" way of separating spatial-"material" qualities as more
"primary" in relation to the other sense qualities has thereby been shown
to be untenable as an argument for the restriction of the concept of science
that was described in the beginning of the article, a restriction that
still continues to govern the greater part of all research activities,
just as if nothing had really happened.
modern physics we have once more again become free to take a start in and
use our own experiences, our own senses and our own thinking efforts to
understand reality. The human being has, once again, become free, also
in an epistemological sense, to try to understand the inner regularities
in the different sense worlds and how they relate to each other.
are once more completely free to form concepts out of the reality in which
we live as human beings and to try to develop our ability to attain knowledge,
without having, in the last instance, once more to "reduce" and ground
our observations and our concepts in the seemingly "primary" qualities
of a lowest level of spatial, material "parts" of matter.
A NEW RESEARCH IMPULSE
A first attempt to develop such a type of research
in modern times was made by Goethe (1749-1832), when he developed his "Theory
of colour" (published in Sweden in 1976 in a translation commented by Sällström)
and when he in 1790 made an outline of a description of the metamorphosis
of plants (Sw transl. 1959). That MIT Press published an American translation
of Goethe's "Theory of Color" around 1976 gives a hint that the insights
of the consequences of modern physics for the theory of knowledge is now
A pioneering contribution to develop the attempt, begun by Goethe, further,
was later made by Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), at first in a number of treatises,
dealing with the theory of knowledge (1886/1979, 1892/1980, 1894/1987),
and later in a number of other fields of science and practical life.
results, in the form of the possibilities to deepen the process of
knowledge that he demonstrated (1904-5/1982, 1905-8/1979, 1910/1989,
and later the extent of the research results that came out of it, can
an overwhelming (on pure "physicalists" for different reasons often
impression, when you start to dig into them. Beside the publication of
28 books, he held about 6 000 lectures, of which now aa larger part
have been published, most of them during the last 20 years of his
During the second part of that period he also, among other things lay the
foundation to and started to build up a "Free School of Spiritual Science",
with the beginnings of among other a medical section, a natural-scientific
section, a mathematical-astronomical section, a pedagogical section, a
section for "spoken and musical arts", a section for the spiritual striving
of youth, and later a social-scientific section, near Basel in Switzerland.
Goetheanum, the name that he gave to the school, and in other places a
number of people have later continued working to deepen and develop further
the many suggestions and new ideas with which he contributed to the development
of different sciences and other fields of practical life as a result of
AN OUTLINE OF A KNOWLEDGE OF MAN - AN ANTHROPOSOPHY
During the 73 years that have passed (in 1998)
since his death, it has only been possible to start scratching on the surface
of the body of research results, ideas and practical suggestions that he
left behind. It will probably take a long time before it becomes possible
to survey the extent of the contribution that he left behind.
core of "anthroposophy", the name that he gave to his contribution, is
its picture of wo/man. With the development of our consciousness as a starting
point he describes history. Out of our relation as human beings to the
world of minerals, plants, animals and out of that which is specifically
human in us, he describes the common development of wo/man, nature and
the earth, as it appears to a meditatively developed research process (Steiner
1910/89 and other works).
all fields of "anthroposophy", wo/man - the development and individuation
process that we have gone through - runs as a red thread, a process that
has now made it possible for us to start standing on our own legs in relation
to our origin, and thereby also startto take over the responsibility for
our own development, both as humanity and as individual humans.
Today we have the possibility as emerging free
beings to look back at history without prejudice to see what we have achieved
in the form of an understanding of the reality surrounding us and of ourselves.
a long period of "idealistically" oriented research into reality, we have
now for a number of centuries gone through a fascinating and interesting
period of research into reality from a "materialistically" oriented perspective.
The former period has made it possible to understand more consciously certain
general, deep laws of nature and of wo/man. The latter has, among other
things, in a decisive way contributed to our possibility to
develop a clear and independent thinking. But this second period has now
also come to a form of an end.
we have the possibility to look through the one-sided way of working during
both these periods. "Anthroposophy" is the beginning of an attempt to develop
an understanding of reality once more starting from a clear, wake, fact-oriented
consciousness of that which is observable with the senses and developing
the thoughts that arise out of what you observe.
results is a renewed orientation in a "functionalistic" direction, but
now against the background of the extensive fruits of a long and fascinating
period of "physicalistically" oriented research.
gigantic amount of work now remains to be done, to not only survive the
maturity-crisis that we now pass through and must pass through as humanity
during the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century, but also
let the insights that have come out of the "matter-scientific" research
of the last centuries fertilize and be fertilized by the insights that
have and can come out of a "spiritual-scientific" oriented research.
as a first attempt towards a possible synthesis of the two traditions,
has taken its first stuttering steps. An "anthroposophic" art of healing,
as a first step towards a future, widened, more factually human art of
healing, is also beginning to take form. To that art of healing this article
has wanted to be a contribution.
The article was first published
in The Nordic Journal for Anthroposophic Medicine nr 1, 1980
ELD-SANDSTRÖM A E: Från
Thales till Einstein (From Thales to Einstein). Stockholm: Aldus/Bonnier
ERIKSSON G: Romantikens världsbild
speglad i 1800-talets svenska vetenskap (The worlds picture of romanticism,
mirrored in Swedish science of the 19th century). Stockholm: Wahlström
och Widstrand 1969
FARRINGTON B: Greek science. Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books 1961
GOETHE J W: Die Metamorphose der Pflanzen
(The metamorphosis of plants). In: Goethes Naturwissenschaftliche Schriften
(Ed Steiner). Stuttgart/Berlin/Leipzig/Jena 1790
HARRE: R: The Philosophies of Science.
An Introductory Survey. London/Oxford/ NY: Oxford Univ Press 1972/1976
HEGGE H: Erkjennelse og virkelighet.
Et bidrag til kritikk av teorien om sansekvalitetenes subjektivitet (Knowledge
and reality. A contribution to the criticism of the theory of the subjectivity
of the sense-qualities). Oslo: Univ forl 1957
- Menneskets forhold til naturen i
historisk og filosofisk perspektiv (Man's relation to nature in a historical
and philosophical perspective). In: Ökologi. Ökofilosofi. (Ed
Hofseth/Vinje). Gyldendal Norsk Forlag 1975
KUHN T: The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions (1962). Chicago/London: The Univ of Chic Press 1970
LAUENSTEIN D: Die vier Denkmodelle
des Abendlandes (The four thought models of the West). Stuttgart: Verl
LINDSTRÖM J: Dialog och förståelse
(Dialogue and understanding). Göteborg: Vetteor inst, Göteborgs
LOSEE J: A historical Introduction
to the Philosophy of Science. London/Oxford/ NY: Oxford Univ Press 1972
LUCRETIUS: On the Nature of the Universe.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books 1978
MARTI E: Die vier Äther (The four
ethers). Stuttgart: Verl Freies Geistesleben 1974
MARTIN M: Atomismus und Moderne Physik
(Atomism and modern physics). Goldach SG (Schweiz): AG für Verlag
und Druckerei 1961
MASTERMAN M: The Nature of a Paradigm.
In: Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Ed Lakatos and Musgrave). London:
Cambridge Univ Press 1970/1974
NAESS A: Ökologi, samfunn og livsstil
(Ecology, society and life style). Oslo: Univ forl 1974
PLATO: Timaeus and Critias. Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books 1971
SINGER C: Naturvetenskapens utveckling
(Sw transl of The history of natural science). Lund: CWK Gleerups Bokförlag
STEINER R: Grundlinien einer Erkenntnistheorie
der Goetheschen Weltanschauung, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Schiller
(1886) (The basis for a theory of knowledge of the Goethean world conception,
with special consideration of Schiller). Dornach: Steiner Verl 1979
- Wahrheit und Wissenschaft (1892)
(Truth and science). Dornach: Steiner Verl 1980
- Die Philosophie der Freiheit (1894)
(The philosophy of freedom). Dornach: Steiner Verl 1987
- Wie erlangt man Erkenntnisse der
höheren Welten? (1904/1905) (How to attain knowledge of higher worlds).
Dornach: Steiner Verl 1982
- Die Stufen der höheren Erkenntnis
(1905-1908) (The stages of higher knowledge). Dornach: Steiner Verl 1979
- Die Schwelle der geistigen Welt (1913)
(The threshold of the spiritual world). Dornach: Steiner Verl 1987
- Die Geheimwissenschaft im Umriss
(1910) (Occult science. An outline). Dornach: Steiner Verl 1989
SÄLLSTRÖM P: Goethes färglära
(Goethes Theory of colours). Stockholm: Kosmos förl 1976
TOULMIN S, GOODFIELD J: Materiens arkitektur
(Sw transl of The architecture of matter) Stockholm: Natur och Kultur 1966
TÖRNEBOHM H: Paradigm i vetenskapernas
värld och i vetenskapsteorin (Paradigm in the world of sciences and
in the theory of science). Göteborg: Rapport 59, ser 1, Avd f vet
teori, Göteborgs Univ 1974
- Three Theories of Nature in Greek
Science. Göteborg: Report 30, ser 2, Avd f vet teori, Göteborgs
UNGER G: Gibt es einer Begriff der
Substanz? (Is there a concept of substance?) In: Beiträge zur Substanzforschung
Bd 1. Dornach 1952
WAGNER J: Vad Einstein verkligen sagt
(What Einstein really said). Stockholm: Raben o Sjögren 1972
WALLEN G: Kunskapsbildning på
empirisk väg (The forming of knowledge in an empirical way). Göteborg:
Rapport 62, ser 1, Avd f vet teori, Göteborgs Univ 1974
WERNER A: Introduktion till kunskapsteorins
historia (An introduction to the history of the theory of knowledge). Lund:
This article was last modified
on June 25, 2002
It has been viewed (page views)
appr. 183,000 times from November 1998 to March 2009.
If you have any comments, feel free
to write to me at
Go to the main page at this site