Science & Education

, Volume 21, Issue 10, pp 1405–1418 | Cite as

Between the Under-Labourer and the Master-Builder: Observations on Bunge’s Method

  • Joseph Agassi


Mario Bunge has repeatedly discussed contributions to philosophy and to science that are worthless at best and dangerous at worst, especially cases of pseudo-science. He clearly gives his reason in his latest essay on this matter: “The fact that science can be faked to the point of deceiving science lovers suggests the need for a rigorous sifting device”. Moreover, this sifting has its rewards, as “sometimes intellectual gold comes mixed with muck”. Furthermore, the sifting device is a demarcation of science, which answers interesting questions: what is valuable in science and what makes it tick? The question is under dispute. So before coming to it we should admit a few preliminary ideas that are more difficult to contest than ideas that purport to demarcate science.


Vienna Circle Observation Report Religious Dogma Primitive Ontology Hasty Conclusion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agassi, J. ([1963] 2008). Towards a Historiography of Science (Vol. 253).Google Scholar
  2. Agassi, J. (1979). The functions of intellectual Rubbish. Research in the Sociology of Knowledge, Science and Art, 2, 209–227.Google Scholar
  3. Agassi, J. (1981). “Was Wittgenstein really necessary?” In J. Agassi (Ed.), Science and society: Studies in the sociology of science, Boston studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 65, Ch. 3).Google Scholar
  4. Agassi, J. (1985). Hegel’s scientific mythopoiesis in historical perspective. In C. Martin, & Westfal (pp. 445–458).Google Scholar
  5. Agassi (1986). The Politics of science. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 3, 35–48. (Reprinted in Agassi, J. (2003). Science and culture, Boston studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 231)).Google Scholar
  6. Agassi, J. (2003). Science and culture, Boston studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 231).Google Scholar
  7. Agassi, J. (2005). To Renew a Rational Debate, review of Friedman, 2000, Iyyun, The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly, 54, 317–323.Google Scholar
  8. Agassi, J. (2008). Science and its history: A reassessment of the historiography of science, Boston studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 253).Google Scholar
  9. Bacon, F. ([1620] 2004). Novum organum (The New Organon). Whitefish, MO: Kessinger Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Blackmore, J. (1989). Ernst Mach leaves ‘The church of physics’. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 40, 519–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buck, R., & Cohen, R. S. (1971). PSA, 1970: In memory of Rudolf Carnap. Boston studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 6).Google Scholar
  12. Bunge M. (1968). The maturation of science. In I. Lakatos, & A. Musgrave (Eds.). Problems in the philosophy of science (pp. 129–147). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  13. Bunge, M. (1985). Treatise on basic philosophy. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bunge, M. (2010). Matter and mind: A philosophical inquiry. Boston studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 287).Google Scholar
  15. Bunge, M. (2011). Knowledge: Genuine and bogus. Science & Education, 20, 411–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carnap, R., & George, R. A. ([1928, 1967] 2003). The logical structure of the world : And, Pseudoproblems in philosophy, Peru IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, R. S., Martin, R. M., & Westfal, M. (Eds.). (1985). Studies in the philosophy of J. N. Findlay. Albany NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  18. Einstein, A. (1954). Preface to Max Jammer, concepts of space. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Feigl, H. ([1970] 1980). “Empiricism at bay?”. In R. S. Cohen (Ed.). Inquiries and provocations: Selected writings 19291974, Vienna Circle Collection (Vol. 16, pp. 269–285). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  20. Friedman, M. (2000). A parting of the ways: Carnap, Cassirer, and Heidegger. Chicago and LaSalle IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  21. Gibson, M. (Ed.). (2006). Witchcraft and society in England and America, 1550–1750. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  22. Harris, J. F. (2002). Analytic philosophy of religion. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Hastorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game: A case study. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (Eds.). (1968). Problems in the philosophy of science. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  25. Locke, J. ([1690] 1979). An essay concerning human understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Naess, A. (1968). Four modern philosophers. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Newton, I. (1718). Opticks. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  28. Popper, K. R. ([1974] 1986). Unended quest. London: Fonatana.Google Scholar
  29. Quine, W. V. O. (1966). The ways of paradox. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  30. Quine, W. V. O. (1971). Homage to Rudolf Carnap. In Buck, & Cohen (pp. xxii–xxv).Google Scholar
  31. Quine, W. V. O. (1988). A comment on Agassi’s remarks, Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheories: Journal for General Philosophy of Science 19, 117–118.Google Scholar
  32. Rhees, R., (ed). (1981). Ludwig Wittgenstein: Personal Recollections (Vol. 132). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Rogers, G. A. J. (1978). Locke’s essay and Newton’s Principia. Journal of the History of Ideas, 39, 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Russell, B. ([1910–1911] 1919). Mysticism and logic and other essays. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
  35. Russell, B. (1918). Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. In Mysticism and logic and other essays (pp. 209–232). London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  36. Shaw, B. (1908). The sanity of art: An exposure of the current nonsense about artists being degenerate. London: New Age Press.Google Scholar
  37. Weingartner, P., & Dorn, G. (Eds.). (1990). Studies on Mario Bunge’s treatise. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  38. Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Wittgenstein, L., & McGuinness, B. (1995). Wittgenstein in Cambridge: Letters and documents, 1911–1951. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.York UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations