, Volume 66, Issue 6, pp 273–278 | Cite as

Unterwegs zu einem Weltbild der Naturwissenschaften

  • P. Sitte


Progress in science relies on specialization and generalization which mutually necessitate each other. Nature cannot be modelled both correctly and comprehensively. In this sense, a fundamental ‘intellectual uncertainty principle’ is to be postulated. Any model of natural objects must be simpler than the objects themselves. Scientific methods are particularly capable of detecting regularities and repetitions in nature from which ‘natural laws’ can be deduced. Consequently, any description of real things as provided by science is strongly selective and must remain fragmentary for principal reasons. Science thus allows but a limited approach to an understanding of the real world. The fundamental limitations of scientific progress are not easily appreciated by the public. Therefore, the general opinion of science is unstable. The capabilities of science have often been overestimated (as in the past) or fundamentally questioned (as at present).


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bernhard, W.: Nova Acta Leopoldina N.F. 43 (222), 25 (1975)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brecht, B.: Leben des Galilei. Berlin: Suhrkamp 1955Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buckel, W.: Forum Hochschulverb. 6, 11 (1976)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Du Bois-Reymond, E.: Reden. Bd. 1, S. 441. Leipzig: Veit 1912Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dürrenmatt, F.: Die Physiker. Zürich: Arche 1962Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gadamer, H.-G., in: Marx, W.: Heidegger, S. 43. Freiburg-München: Alber 1977Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heidegger, M.: Die Zeit des Weltbildes. „Holzwege”, S. 69. Frankfurt: Klostermann 1950Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heilbroner, R.L.: An Inquiry into the Human Prospect. New York 1974Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jaspers, K.: Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte. München: Piper 1949Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kinzel, H.: Biol. in uns. Zeit 5, 161 (1975)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuhn, Th.S.: Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp 1973Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lorenz, K.: Blätter dtsch. Phil. 15, 94 (1941); Z. Tierpsychol. 5, 235 (1943); Die Rückseite des Spiegels. München: Piper 1975Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lorenz, K.: Naturwissenschaften 54, 377 (1967)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marcuse, H.: Der eindimensionale Mensch. Neuwied-Berlin: Luchterhand 1967Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mohr, H.: Verh. Ges. Dtsch. Naturforsch, u. Ärzte 107, 152 (1973)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mohr, H.: Lectures on Structure and Significance of Science. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer 1977Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mohr, H.: Naturwiss. Rdsch. 30, 37 (1977)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mohr, H.: Forum Hochschulverb. 15, 35 (1978)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mumford, L.: The Myth of the Machine. 1967Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ploog, D.: Klin. Wschr. 55, 857 (1977)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Popper, K.R.: Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon 1972Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roszak, Th.: Where the Wasteland Ends. New York: Doubleday 1973Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scheel, W.: Bild d. Wiss. 14 (3), 71 (1977)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sitte, P.: Naturwissenschaften 60, 333 (1973)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sitte, P.: Kassenarzt 16, 2018 (1976)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Unsöld, A.: Naturwiss. Rdsch. 30, 117 (1977)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wigner, E.: zit. n. Eigen, M., Winkler, R.: Das Spiel, S. 162. München: Piper 1975Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Woodcock, J.: Interdiscipl. Sci. Rev. 3 (1), 30 (1978)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Sitte
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Biologie II der UniversitätFreiburg i.Br.

Personalised recommendations