L'A. publie la liste des ouvrages consacres au structuralisme qui sont parus entre 1989 et 1994. Suite a la premiere bibliographie du structuralisme qui a ete publiee dans la revue «Erkenntnis» (n°30, 1989), l'A. publie egalement la liste des travaux anterieurs a 1989 qui ont ete oublies cinq ans plutot

Bibliography of structuralism II (1989–1994 and Additions)

Over the past four decades, software engineering has emerged as a discipline in its own right, though it has roots both in computer science and in classical engineering. Its philosophical foundations and premises are not yet well understood. In recent times, members of the software engineering community have started to search for such foundations. In particular, the philosophies of Kuhn and Popper have been used by philosophically-minded software engineers in search of a deeper understanding of their discipline. It seems, however, that professional philosophers of science are not yet aware of this new discourse within the field of software engineering. Therefore, this article aims to reflect critically upon recent software engineers’ attempts towards a philosophy of software engineering and to introduce our own philosophical thoughts in this context. Finally, we invite the professional philosophers of science to participate in this interesting new discourse.

/pdf/towards-a-philosophy-of-software-development-40-years-after-3t9l6vpmxc.pdf

Towards a philosophy of software development : 40 years after the birth of software engineering

Es wird eine Unterscheidung zwischen fur eine einzelne Wissenschaft (z. B. Physik, Chemie) eigentumlichen Problemen und technologischen Problemen vorgeschlagen. Dieser Unterscheidung liegt eine Auffassung zugrunde, nach welcher jede Wissenschaft einen speziellen Ausblick auf die Welt erarbeitet, einen Ausblick, der nur diejenigen Aspekte eines wirklichen Vorgangs heraussucht und sich aneignet, welche fur diese Wissenschaft eigentumlich sind. Im Gegensatz dazu erfast die Technologie Vorgange in der Gesamtheit ihrer Aspekte. Auf der Grundlage dieser Unterscheidung werden die Grundzuge des Verfahrens, welches zur Losung von technologischen Problemen fuhrt (Mittel zur Losung, Natur des Verfahrens, besondere Kennzeichen der erzielten Losungen), diskutiert.

Demarcating technology from science: Problems and problem solving in technology

L'etablissement de liens necessaires entre l'enseignement scientifique et la didactique des sciences physiques nous conduit a etudier les conceptions des enseignants concernant differents aspects de l'enseignemen t des sciences physiques de maniere qu'elles soient conscientes et utilisables, en meme temps par l'enseignant et le chercheur. L'article presente une classification des programmes d'enseignement secondaire concernant l'energie qui a ete utilisee comme outil d'analyse et d'evaluation des conceptions des enseignants sur l'enseignement experimental de l'energie. Dans le cadre de cette nouvelle classification, nous distinguons trois types de programme : le "traditionel" ou le concept d'energie est disperse dans plusieurs unites thematiques possedant une autonomie conceptuelle dans chacune de ces unites ; Vinnovatif ou l'energie constitue un element organisateur du programme et le "constructiviste" qui prend en consideration les representations des eleves et les obstacles cognitifs a depasser. Cette classification est appliquee a une etude des conceptions des enseignants scientifiques en formation qui planifient une serie d'activites experimentales concernant le concept d'energie. Les resultats de notre etude nous conduisent a discuter l'interet de la classification comme moyen de communication entre l'enseignant scientifique et le chercheur en didactique des sciences physiques.

http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/8696/ASTER_1998_26_165.pdf;sequence=1

L'enseignement de l'énergie au collège vu par les enseignants. grille d'analyse de leurs conceptions

This paper takes part in the methodological debate concerning the nature and the justification of hypotheses about computational systems in software engineering by providing an epistemological analysis of Software Testing, the practice of observing the programs’ executions to examine whether they fulfil software requirements. Property specifications articulating such requirements are shown to involve falsifiable hypotheses about software systems that are evaluated by means of tests which are likely to falsify those hypotheses. Software Reliability metrics, used to measure the growth of probability that given failures will occur at specified times as new executions are observed, is shown to involve a Bayesian confirmation of falsifiable hypotheses on programs. Coverage criteria, used to select those input values with which the system under test is to be launched, are understood as theory-laden principles guiding software tests, here compared to scientific experiments. Redundant computations, fault seeding models and formal methods used in software engineering to evaluate test results are taken to be instantiations of some epistemological strategies used in scientific experiments to distinguish between valid and non-valid experimental outcomes. The final part of the paper explores the problem, advanced in the context of the philosophy of technology, of defining the epistemological status of software engineering by conceiving it as a scientifically attested technology.

The Problem of Justification of Empirical Hypotheses in Software Testing

In a series of papers (Baltas 1987, 1988, 1989a), I have been trying to develop a structuralist/constructivist approach to the structure and to the dynamics of Physics drawing, on the main, from two sources: On the one hand, the ‘structuralist’ program pioneered by J. D. Sneed (Sneed 1971, Stegmuller 1976, 1979 and Balzer et al. 1987) and, on the other, the neomarxist conception of science developed by Louis Althusser and his students (Althusser and Balibar 1972, Althusser 1973, Fichant and Pecheux 1971, among others). In a nutshell, this approach states: Physics is made up from three interconstitutive ‘elements’ — its object, its conceptual system and the experimental transactions specific to it. Each of these elements becomes what it is and performs its epistemic function only on the basis of the relations it entertains with the other two2: The conceptual system picks up the phenomena that are to make up Physics’ object (which we may call ‘natural phenomena’) and transforms them into what we may call ‘physical phenomena’, that is phenomena apprehended and treated only on the basis of this system’s concepts, only as ‘dressed’ by the ‘clothes’ composed by the system. For example, the conceptual system of Physics transforms a falling apple into a ‘point mass attracted by a gravitational force’.

Once Again on the Meaning of Physical Concepts

Given the title of the present paper, I feel singularly privileged by having to speak here today just after Professor Sneed and just before Professor Balzer. This can be well understood and I leave it at that. However, despite (or, rather, because of) this privilege, my feelings are not unmixed — to say the least. The question-mark in my title — implying that my conclusions are not definite (and hence that my presumed Marxism is probably not of the dogmatic variety) — as well as the adjective “strange” there — intending to predispose my audience favourably by inciting it to keep an open mind towards what it is going to hear — are very poor defenses indeed against the risks involved in what I am about to propose, namely that the encounter in question — the question-mark notwithstanding — is effective.

Louis Althusser and Joseph D. Sneed: A Strange Encounter in Philosophy of Science?

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Aristides Baltas

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Demarcating technology from science: Problems and problem solving in technology

Once Again on the Meaning of Physical Concepts

Louis Althusser and Joseph D. Sneed: A Strange Encounter in Philosophy of Science?