How Long Does It Take To Be Size Zero

The history of scientific thought

General

for each of these modules is to study the corresponding part, A and B, the essays in the book of scientific thought. For module A, moreover, has the text of Galileo Galilei, Starry Messenger (for 2006-2007), Giordano Bruno, the dinner for the ashes (for 2007-2008). For module B, the texts of Wolfgang Pauli, contained in Psyché and Nature (for 2006-2007), CG Jung, Synchronicity (for 2007-2008). The exam will only oral interview, or possibly two separate, one on one Form A and Form B on Papers will be accepted more. There is an exact correspondence between the lectures and the book on the general (Essays on History of Scientific Thought): classes are specific studies, which may be outside parts of the text, as well as there will be lectures on topics not included in the book . Need to read the entire book in its entirety, even in the parts not covered in class. It would be nice to be able to talk in class really. Attending and not attending will be able to intervene on the discussions born to each lesson on this blog just for you.

The whys and content: some initial reflection

The course is for everyone. But why a course in the history of scientific thought has been included in an undergraduate degree in psychology? As you know, in this, there is also a course in the history of psychology. The course of history of psychology, in addition to setting specific date by the teacher, is aimed at discussion of the internal developments of the psychological disciplines. Here, however, it is mainly to understand the origins and development of psychological ideas before they are constituted to form separate and independent disciplines, in their relations with ideas which then feed into other disciplines separate if not opposed to psychological ones. Psychology is a science? The psychological thinking is scientific thinking? And in what sense? To answer these questions, we must understand what science is, what is the scientific thought, what the context of the birth of psychology within the broader context of culture and knowledge.
division of so-called "natural sciences" by the "Science of the Spirit" has emerged in a clear and conscious in the late nineteenth century: according to this division, we could distinguish and separate two science classes.
On the one hand, of course, the "Science of Nature":
mathematics
physics, astronomy
,
chemistry, biology
,
etc.

together constitute the "science" itself.
other hand, the "Science of the Spirit":
philosophy, history
,
ethics, aesthetics
,
psychology, sociology
,
political
anthropology, etc
.

And so we define a kind of "topology" of knowledge, which highlights relations between the two classes of separability between disciplines and between them, relations of closeness or "distance" between the universes of discourse exactly defined and closed to one another. But it was not always the case, there was always this seems quite artificial division: This division is the result of a dualistic vision for which Nature and Spirit are two separate things and opposite.
But there's more: As the "story" has been regarded as a discipline in this classification, the real story as a set of human activities and practices, as a set of events that should be the object of study of history as discipline or the various "historical disciplines" (the history of religions, the history of philosophy, history of science, etc..) strongly opposed to a configuration typical of a "simple topology" of knowledge (or spatial, spatial distribution, static and instantaneous, with no connections and no time dimension of the subjects), putting it fully into question, and involving the various disciplines in a series of dynamic processes, temporal changes of the weave.
short, compared to the real history, the disciplines appear as abstractions from life in which all these studies, these activities are held together and not separately. These abstractions appear as simplifications of a reality of knowledge "complex", where all disciplines are inextricably intertwined and even indistinguishable and therefore can not be separated from them, the disciplines do not really exist. Even at the conceptual level these distinctions and separations are impossible: for example, think of the concept of time. The concept of time belongs to physics? Or philosophy? Or the story? O psychology? When we talk about it or define it in philosophy or physics, do not assume that we "know" the time from the other "disciplines"?
He still considers knowledge as something to dominate, from the metaphor of "divide and conquer" typical domain of the lands and peoples of the Empire. But it is not even a simple metaphor: the division and the "specialized" knowledge in disciplines and is preparing a functional division of labor, and the division of labor is closely related to the formation a power and a social domination, economic, political, ethnic or groups of men on other men, usually men or boys on women, and finally man over other living beings and nature.
more immediately, the division of disciplines is the increasing number of university chairs and teachers' accommodation, but certainly not a requirement of knowledge, of understanding. All this system of knowledge divided into disciplines is reflected in the university, which is functional in this codification and transmission of knowledge aimed at power and domination: even the architecture of the classrooms or laboratories where university education takes place is functional in power relations, to separate us from life and nature.

The awareness of all this tells us a different way forward. The history of scientific knowledge should not be construed as a scheme framed by the others, but as a survey that shows us the complex reality of a knowledge which is not divided into disciplines. This course would establish itself as a process against the specialization of knowledge, against its codification and broadcast content related to an ideology of power, domination and ultimately violence. Nor is it to achieve learning (course) in the history of science is not involved in these deceptively purposes of domination and an end in itself: it is impossible and in any case would not serve nothing. We must make a pint-sized revolution. "

need to return to a knowledge related to life, it is important to our lives, a knowledge that inevitably rediscover its ethical dimension. Follow or create a certain image of nature or the Holy Spirit has ethical implications, is something inextricably linked to ethical assumptions. Think of a nature as a thing without the Spirit, "inanimate" or non-living, has ethical consequences devastating. Think of a Spirit without nature, without body or soul has ethical consequences as devastating. That's why for future "psychologists" is essential to understand not only the various conceptions of the soul or spirit, but also the various conceptions of Nature: leaves of their business, their ethics, and as with all of his life.