1,478 research outputs found
Descartes, corpuscles and reductionism : mechanism and systems in Descartes' physiology
I argue that Descartes explains physiology in terms of whole systems, and not in terms of the size, shape and motion of tiny corpuscles (corpuscular mechanics). It is a standard, entrenched view that Descartes’s proper means of explanation in the natural world is through strict reduction to corpuscular mechanics. This view is bolstered by a handful of corpuscular-mechanical explanations in Descartes’s physics, which have been taken to be representative of his treatment of all natural phenomena. However, Descartes’s explanations of the ‘principal parts’ of physiology do not follow the corpuscular–mechanical pattern. Des Chene (2001) has identified systems in Descartes’s account of physiology, but takes them ultimately to reduce down to the corpuscle level. I argue that they do not. Rather, Descartes maintains entire systems, with components selected from multiple levels of organisation, in order to construct more complete explanations than corpuscular mechanics alone would allow
Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment
International audienceEngaging in reflective activities in interaction, such as explaining, justifying and evaluating problem solutions, has been shown to be potentially productive for learning. Here we address the problem of how these activities may be promoted in the context of computer-mediated communication with respect to a modelling task in physics. We present the design principles of two different communication interfaces. The first allows free text to be exchanged, and the second structures the interaction by providing a restricted set of communicative acts. Comparative analyses of interaction corpora produced with the two communication interfaces are then described. The analyses show that use of the second structured interface in performing the problem-solving task is feasible for students, and that it promotes a taskfocussed and reflective interaction. In conclusion we discuss the different resources provided by different media and the relative degrees of effort that their use requires
THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE EVOLUTION OF EMPIRICISM
[The text examines methodological consequences of anti-metaphysical turn of British empiricism in the field of anthropology. I argue that this shift reinforces anthropology in its descriptive and interdisciplinary form, because destruction of metaphysically grounded subjectivity carried out in the course of evolution of empiricism provides epistemological legitimization of the idea of anthropological research as morally neutral and religiously indifferent procedure. In the final part of the article the difficulties caused by application of this new methodology are emphasized.
Descartes on Physical Vacuum: Rationalism in Natural-Philosophical Debate
Descartes is notorious for holding a strong anti-vacuist
position. On his view, according to the standard reading, empty space not
only does not exist in nature, but it is logically impossible. The very notion of
a void or vacuum is an incoherent one. Recently Eric Palmer has proposed a
revisionist reading of Descartes on empty space, arguing that he is more
sanguine about its possibility. Palmer makes use of Descartes’ early
correspondence with Marin Mersenne, including his commentary on Galileo’s
Two New Sciences. I argue that Palmer’s reading is mistaken, and that it relies on
an understandable but faulty inference—i.e., that if Descartes considers the
implications of an opposing view, he must find it at least coherent. Descartes,
as I show from his correspondence and other texts, uses a variety of
persuasive strategies, and levels charges of different logical strength, against
positions which he takes to be incoherent. Thus we cannot infer from the fact
that Descartes argues, e.g., that something is a superfluous theoretical entity,
that he admits that entity’s coherence. He often chooses to argue a weaker
thesis against an opponent so that he can use an argument to which the
opponent is more likely to agree
- …