Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Negative cross-fertilization

Zusammenfassung

Negative gegenseitige Befruchtung mag als seltsamer Titel erscheinen. Gegenseitige Befruchtung scheint per definitionem etwas Positives zu sein. Aber diese Untersuchung will die Aufmerksamkeit auf die Tatsache richten, daß in einer großen Anzahl von Fällen die gegenseitige Befruchtung einige negative Effekte auslöst; einige von ihnen mögen sogar katastrophal sein.

Dieser Artikel kann die Aufmerksamkeit nur auf die negativen Auswirkungen und die Notwendigkeit lenken, die Bedingungen, welche den positiven oder negativen Ausgang oder die Unwirksamkeit einer bestimmten gegenseitigen Befruchtung determinieren, ausführlicher zu untersuchen; um die Randbedingungen auf beiden Seiten zu formulieren: Das Befruchtende und das Befruchtete.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Literatur

  1. 1

    Cfr. S. Shapin, ‘History of science and its social reconstructions’.Hist. Sci. XX (1982) 157–211; esp. p. 175ss. An often cited article is: P. Forman, ‘Weimar culture, causality, and quantum theory (1918–1927)’, in:Hist. Stud. in the physical sciences 3 (1971) 1–115.

  2. 2

    E. J. Dijksterhuis,The mechanisation of the World picture (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), p. 465–477.

  3. 3

    E. A. Burtt,The metaphysical foundations of modern physical science (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 19722), p. 243ss.

  4. 4

    H. Th. Buckle,History of Civilization in England, quoted in: F. Stern (Ed.),The varieties of history (Cleveland: The World Publ. Co., 196613), p. 124ss. I like to thank C. Offringa, who draw my attention to the literature mentioned in this and the next note.

  5. 4a

    ibid.

  6. 5

    Craig's rules of historical evidence,History and Theory, III (1964) Beiheft 4, p. 3ss.

  7. 5a

    ibid.

  8. 6

    T. Winograd,Language as a cognitive process: syntax (Reading Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pu Co., 1983), p. 8–13.

  9. 7

    R. M. Young, ‘The impact of Darwin on conventional thought’, in: (A. Symondson, ed.),The victorian crisis of faith (London: SPCK, 1970), p. 15.

  10. 8

    R. P. Botha,The Conduct of Linguistic Inquiry: a systematic introduction to the methodology of generative grammar, (Den Haag: Mouton, 1981), p. 1.

  11. 9

    ibid., p. 26.

  12. 10

    ibid., p. 40.

  13. 11

    ibid., p. 46.

  14. 12

    N. Chomsky,Reflection on language (N.Y.: Phanteon, 1975), p. 36.

  15. 13

    J. A. Fodor, T. G. Bever, and M. F. Garrett,The psychology of language (N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, 1974), p. 369.

  16. 13a

    ibid.

  17. 14

    Cfr. E. A. Esper,Mentalism and objectivism in linguistics (N.Y.: Elsevier, 1968) Although he is suggesting a parallel between mentalism-objectivism with Geisteswissenschaft-Naturwissenschaft in his epilogue, in fact, in the way he describes mentalism has nothing to do with Geisteswissenschaft except a few lines which play no role in his exposé.

  18. 15

    G. A. Miller,Language and communication (N. Y.: McGraw-Hill, 1951), p. 182.

  19. 16

    ibid., p. 174s.

  20. 17

    Which is certainly G. Miller's view; cfr. Ch. 12 which describes “how the communication net can affect the behavior of small groups“ (p. 249).

  21. 18

    T. Myers, interview 25 March 1983.

  22. 19

    M. Ringle, ‘Philosophy and Artificial Intelligence‘, in:Philosophical perspectives on Artificial Intelligence (Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Pr., 1979), p. 1.

  23. 20

    D. Marr,Vision (S. Francisco: Freeman, 1982) p. 187.

  24. 21

    J. Weizenbaum,Computer thought and human reasoning (S. Francisco: Freeman, 1976).

  25. 22

    B. E. Dresher, and N. Hornstein, ‘On some supposed contributions of Artificial Intelligence to the scientific studies of language‘, in:Cognition 4 (1976) p. 321–398.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schopman, J. Negative cross-fertilization. Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 17, 59–67 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01801116

Download citation