This essay considers problems and advantages of philosophical involvement with sciences distant from our own. It endorses the view that, rather than testing of philosophical hypotheses against historical data, this is a matter of interpretation and explication. Guidelines for accessing and interpreting others’ sciences are proposed: a common ground maxim, relating to our need to find practices, questions and beliefs that we share with them; and a coherence maxim, relating to the need to do justice to the often alien ways in which others’ beliefs and practices may form coherent systems. Examples are then given of ways in which examination of distant sciences, guided by the common ground and coherence maxims, can challenge current philosophical assumptions and enrich our philosophical agenda.
Aït-TouatiF.2011. Fictions of the Cosmos: Science and Literature in the Seventeenth Century , Transl. by EmanuelS.. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
AtranS.1993. Cognitive Foundations of Natural History: Towards an Anthropology of Science . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BarthesR.1967 [1953]. Writing Degree Zero , Transl. by LaversA., and SmithC.. London: Cape.
5.
BazermanC.1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science . Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
6.
BeebeeH.2000. “The non-Governing Conception of Laws of Nature. ” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61: 571–594.
7.
BeerG.2004. Darwin's Plots: Evolutionary Narrative in Darwin, George Eliot, and Nineteenth-Century Fiction . 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BeiserF.2011. The German Historicist Tradition . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
BerlinB.1992. Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
BerrymanS.2009. The Mechanical Hypothesis in Ancient Greek Natural Philosophy . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Bertoloni MeliD.2006. Thinking with Objects: The Transformation of Mechanics in the Seventeenth Century . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
12.
Bertoloni MeliD.2019. Mechanics: A Visual, Lexical, and Conceptual History . Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
13.
CampbellM. B.1999. Wonder and Science: Imagining Worlds in Early Modern Europe . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
14.
CodeL.2017. “
Rhetoric and Social Epistemology. ” In The Oxford Handbook of Rhetorical Studies , edited by MacDonaldM. J., 721–732. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
CompagnonA.1999a. “La rhétorique à la fin du XIXe siècle (1875-1900)”. In Fumaroli 1999a: 1215-1260.
16.
CompagnonA.1999b. “La réhabilitation de la rhétorique au XXe siècle”. In Fumaroli 1999a: 1261-1282.
17.
ConteG. B.1994. “
Instructions for a Sublime Reader: Form of the Text and Form of the Addressee in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura . ” In Genres and Readers , transl. by MostG. W., 1–34. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
18.
DastonL., and StolleisM., eds. 2008. Natural Law and Laws of Nature in Early Modern Europe: Jurisprudence, Theology, Moral and Natural Philosophy . Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.
19.
DavidsonD.1974. “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme. ” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 47: 5–20.
20.
EcoU.2003. Mouse or Rat: Translation as Negotiation . London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
21.
FahnestockJ.1999. Rhetorical Figures in Science . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
FullerS.1993. Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge . Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
23.
FumaroliM.1999. Histoire de la rhétorique dans l'Europe moderne, 1450-1950 . Paris: PUF.
24.
GiereR. N.1999. Science Without Laws . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
GrossA. G.1999. The Rhetoric of Science . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
HallynFerdinand.1993. The Poetic Structure of the World: Copernicus and Kepler . New York: Zone Books.
27.
HeadlandT. N., PikeK. L., and HarrisM.. Eds. Emics and Etics: The Insider/Outsider Debate . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
HoskinM. A.2001. Tombs, Temples and Their Orientations: A New Perspective on Mediterranean Prehistory . Bognor Regis: Ocarina Books.
29.
JardineN.1988. The Birth of History and Philosophy of Science: Kepler's A Defense of Tycho Against Ursus with Essays on its Provenance and Significance. 2nd ed . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
JardineN.2000. “Uses and Abuses of Anachronism in the History of the Sciences. ” History of Science 38: 251–270.
31.
JardineN.2004. “Etics and Emics (not to Mention Anemics and Emetics) in the History of the Sciences. ” History of Science 42: 261–278.
32.
JardineN.2014. “Kepler = Koestler: on Empathy and Genre in the History of the Sciences. ” Journal for the History of Astronomy 45: 271–288.
33.
JardineN.2019. “Turning to Ontology in Studies of Distant Sciences. ” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 9/1: 172–178.
34.
JardineN., and SegondsA.. 2008. La Guerre des Astronomes. Vol2/1: Le Contra Ursum de Jean Kepler . Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
35.
JuniorW. S. F., GonçalvesP. H. S., de LucenaR. F. P., and AlbuquerqueU. P.. 2016. “
Alternative Views of Folk Classification. ” In Introduction to Ethnobiology , edited by AlbuquerqueU. P. and AlvesR., 123–128. Cham: Springer.
36.
KennedyG. A.1980. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition From Ancient to Modern Times . London: Croom Helm.
37.
KienpointerM.2001. ““
Modern Revivals of Aristotle's and Cicero's Topics: Toulmin, Perelman, Anscombre/Ducrot
”.” In Papers on Grammar: VII, Argumentation and Latin , edited by BertocchiA., MaraldiM., and OrlandiniA., 17–34. Bologna: CLUEB.
38.
KoopmanC.2013. Genealogy as Critique: Foucault and the Problem of Modernity . Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
39.
KuukkanenJ.-M.2018. “Editorial. Can History be Said to Test Philosophy?
” Journal of the Philosophy of History 12: 183–190.
40.
LehouxD.2006. “Laws of Nature and Natural Laws. ” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37: 527–549.
41.
LehouxD.2012. What Did the Romans Know? An Inquiry Into Science and Worldmaking . Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
42.
Lévi-StraussC.1966 [1962]. The Savage Mind . London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
43.
LiuB.2015. Sentiment Analysis: Mining Sentiments, Opinions, and Emotions . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
LloydG. E. R.2009. Disciplines in the Making . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.
MackP.2011. A History of Renaissance Rhetoric . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46.
MiłkowskiM.2018. “From Computer Metaphor to Computational Modelling: the Evolution of Computationalism. ” Minds and Machines 28: 515–541.
47.
MirowskiP.1988. Against Mechanism: Protecting Economics from Science . Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
48.
MyersG.1990. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge . Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
49.
NetzR.2009. Ludic Proof: Greeks Mathematics and the Alexandrian Aesthetic . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
PellicerA.1966. Natura: Étude sémantique et historique du mot latin . Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
51.
PerelmanC., and Olbrechts-TytecaL.. 1969 [1952]. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation , Transl. by WilkinsonJ. and WeaverP.. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
52.
PinnickC., and GaleG.. 2000. “Philosophy of Science and History of Science: a Troubling Interaction. ” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 3: 109–125.
53.
PlettH. F.2012. Enargeia in Classical Antiquity and the Early Modern Age . Leiden: Brill.
54.
PorterJ. I.2016. The Sublime in Antiquity . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
ReissT. J.1982. The Discourse of Modernity . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
56.
RochbergF.2016. Before Nature: Cuneiform Knowledge and the History of Science . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
57.
RubyJ. E.1986. “The Origins of Scientific Law. ” Journal of the History of Ideas 46: 341–359.
58.
SchickoreJ.2007. The Microscope and the Eye: A History of Reflections 1740-1870 . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
59.
SchickoreJ.2017. About Method: Experimenters, Snake Venom, and the History of Writing Scientifically . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
60.
SchickoreJ.2018. “Explication Work for Science and Philosophy. ” Journal of the Philosophy of History 12: 191–211.
61.
SchnädelbachH.1974. Geschichtsphilosophie nach Hegel. Die Probleme des Historismus . Freiburg/München: Verlag Karl Alber.
62.
SchollR.2018. “Scenes From a Marriage: on the Confrontation Model of History and Philosophy of Science. ” Journal of the Philosophy of History 12: 212–238.
63.
SerjeantsonR. W.2006. “
Proof and Persuasion. ” In The Cambridge History of Science, Vol. 3: Early Modern Science , edited by ParkK. and DastonL., 132–175. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64.
ShapinS.1984. “Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle's Literary Technology. ” Social Studies of Science 14: 481–520.
65.
ShearinW. H.2019. “
Cosmology, Sublimity, and Knowledge in Lucretius’ De rerum natura and Seneca's Naturales quaestiones . ” In Cosmos in the Ancient World , edited by HorkyP. S., 247–269. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
66.
SkouenT., and StarkR. J., eds. 2015. Rhetoric and the Early Royal Society: A Sourcebook . Leiden: Brill.
67.
StaleyR.2012. “Conversions, Dreams, Defining Aims? Following Boas and Malinowski, Physics and Anthropology, Through Laboratory and Field. ” History of Anthropology Newsletter 39 (2): 3–10.
68.
SteeleJ. M.2000. “Eclipse Prediction in Mesopotamia. ” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 54/5: 421–454.
69.
SterelnyK.2012. The Evolved Apprentice: How Evolution Made Humans Unique . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
70.
TaubL. C.2017. Science Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquty . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
71.
ThagardP.2000. Coherence in Thought and Action . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
72.
ThagardP., and MillgramE.. 1995. “
Inference to the Best Plan: A Coherence Theory of Decision. ” In Goal-Driven Learning , edited by RamA. and LeakeD. B., 438–454. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
73.
ToulminS.1958. The Uses of Argument . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
74.
TsingA. L.2005. Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
75.
Van DyckM.2018. “
Renaissance Idea of Natural Law. ” In Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy , edited by SgarbiM.. Cham: Springer. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/
10.1007/978-3-319-02848-4_71-1.
76.
VasoliC.1968. La dialettica e la retorica dell'Umanesimo: “invenzione” e “metodo” nella cultura del XV e XVI siecolo . Milan: Feltrinelli.
77.
VenutiL.1995. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation . London: Routledge.
78.
WallersteinI.1996. “History in Search of Science. ” Review (Fernand Braudel Center) 19/1: 11–22.
79.
WaltonD.2013. Methods of Argumentation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
80.
WaltonD., ReedC., and MacagnoF.. 2008. Argumentation Schemes . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
81.
WebbR.2009. Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice . Farnham: Ashgate.
82.
WilliamsG. D.2012. The Cosmic Viewpoint: A Study of Seneca's Natural Questions . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
83.
WinchP.1958. The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
84.
WindelbandWilhelm.1980 [1894]. ““Geschichte und Naturwissenschaft”. Transl. G. Oakes, 1924. ” History and Theory 19: 169–185.
85.
WintroubM.2015. “
The Looking Glass of Facts: Collecting, Rhetoric and Citing the Self in the Experimental Natural Philosophy of Robert Boyle. ” In Rhetoric and the Early Royal Society , edited by SkoenT. and StarkR. J., 202–236. Leiden: Brill.
