https://www.fn.uw.edu.pl/index.php/fn/issue/feed Filozofia Nauki 2022-03-11T19:05:35+00:00 Krzysztof Sękowski filnauki.wfis@uw.edu.pl Open Journal Systems <p>„Filozofia Nauki” (ang. "The Philosophy of Science") jest kwartalnikiem naukowym wydawanym przez Wydział Filozofii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Zamieszcza recenzowane artykuły, polemiki i recenzje obejmujące cały zakres filozofii analitycznej, w tym epistemologię, ontologię, filozofię nauki, filozofię języka, filozofię umysłu, logikę filozoficzną, semiotykę logiczną, prakseologię i kognitywistykę.</p> https://www.fn.uw.edu.pl/index.php/fn/article/view/1231 Philosophy of Economics and the Significance of Economics to Philosophy: Introduction to the Topical Collection "Philosophy of Economics" 2022-03-11T19:05:35+00:00 Łukasz Hardt lhardt@wne.uw.edu.pl Marcin Poręba m.poreba@uw.edu.pl 2022-03-10T00:00:00+00:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## https://www.fn.uw.edu.pl/index.php/fn/article/view/1203 Lucasian Microfoundations as a Form of Structural Realism 2022-03-10T20:33:54+00:00 Peter Galbács Galbacs.Peter@uni-bge.hu <p>This paper is an attempt to understand Robert E. Lucas’s microfounded models of the 1960-70s as results of a structuralist project. It is argued that the way Lucas derived macroeconomic outcomes from the decisions of market agents is in line with the basic tenet of the semirealist version of structural realism, where structures are conceived as relations emerging between properties of relata under specific conditions. Accordingly, after an overview of semirealism, it is emphasized that in his microfoundations project Lucas formulated the basic decision problem so that large-scale fluctuations could plausibly be traced back to agents’ properties. The transition from Lucas and Rapping’s model of the labor market to Lucas’s monetary island model is described as placing the same decision makers in a setting the specifics of which are in consonance with the assumed actions and interactions of market participants.</p> 2021-11-04T00:00:00+00:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## https://www.fn.uw.edu.pl/index.php/fn/article/view/1232 Can Normative Economics Be Convincing without the Notion of Well-Being? 2022-03-10T20:33:57+00:00 Tomasz Kwarciński kwarcint@uek.krakow.pl Krzysztof M. Turek <p>In this article, we examine the notion of well-being in light of the relationship between positive and normative economics. Having identified four interrelationships between possible theoretical developments within the two fields, we propose a framework for the analysis of normative economic theories. The starting point for these considerations were competing stances on well-being proposed by neoclassical welfare economics, Robert Sugden, Amartya Sen, and Daniel Hausman.</p> 2022-03-10T20:26:41+00:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## https://www.fn.uw.edu.pl/index.php/fn/article/view/1227 Economic Models as Cultural Artifacts: A Philosophical Primer 2022-03-10T20:33:59+00:00 Jarosław Boruszewski borjar@amu.edu.pl Krzysztof Nowak-Posadzy k_nowak@amu.edu.pl <p>As economics became a model-based science, ontological nature, cognitive status, and practical uses of economic models came under the spotlight of philosophers of economics and economic methodologists. However, what was strikingly missing was the interest in the cultural dimension of economic modeling. Some calls for thematizing “cultural framework” (Mäki), “enculturation” (Goldschmidt, Remmele), or “culture patterns” (Benton) of economic models have appeared in recent years, and this paper aims at addressing such calls. To this end, we start with the artifactual approach to economic models (Morgan, Knuuttila, Halsmayer), which cuts across the idealization–construction debate, and complement this approach with the cultural-semiotic component, drawing from the symbolic anthropology of Clifford Geertz. We thus come up with an interpretation of economic models as cultural artifacts, which enables us to address the insufficiently explored question of style in economic modeling using Nelson Goodman’s semiotic account of style.</p> 2022-02-20T00:00:00+00:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## https://www.fn.uw.edu.pl/index.php/fn/article/view/1214 Understanding without Explanation: A Still Open Issue 2022-03-10T20:34:02+00:00 Richard David-Rus rusdavid3@yahoo.com <p>This paper takes a stance in the debate concerning scientific understanding. It claims that the case for a specific type of understanding, understanding without explanation (UwE), is still open, despite the tendency in the current literature that might suggest otherwise. The paper begins by situating the distinction between an explanatory and non-explanatory understanding in the debate on understanding by introducing Lipton’s account of UwE. The paper then discusses the significance of Lipton’s proposals for the debate and argues that Kelp’s interpretation does not exhaust the challenge they pose to any theory of understanding. The paper then examines the best articulated critique of Lipton’s account provided by Khalifa and rejects it as inadequate. It ends by sketching out a list of positive reasons that support the continued examination of UwE.</p> 2021-12-11T00:00:00+00:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## https://www.fn.uw.edu.pl/index.php/fn/article/view/1228 O pojęciu zdarzenia będącego złamaniem prawa przyrody 2022-03-10T20:34:05+00:00 Adrian Kuźniar adrian_kuzniar@uw.edu.pl <p>In this paper, I analyze the concept of an event that breaks a law of nature. My investigations are carried out in the context of David Lewis’s critique of Peter van Inwagen’s Consequence Argument for incompatibilism. It is argued that Lewis’s definition of a “law-breaking event” is too narrow. I offer an amended definition and explore its consequences for the prospects of van Inwagen’s argument.</p> 2022-02-21T00:00:00+00:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement##