This paper concerns the question whether the rational reconstruction of science provided by the philosophy of science is partly descriptive and partly normative task. To this respect we offer a general characterization of the concept of science and observe then briefly the relations between the history and the philosophy of science. The widely extended view that there cannot be a history of science without an underIying philosophy suggests the problem whether it can exist a rational reconstruction of science independently from any theory about the science. On the answer to this question depends that we could conceive the philosophy of science as a discipline which combines descriptive (or empirical) with normative eIements.

The starting point of the paper is the explicit recognition that the prevalent methodology among economists -namely popperian falsacionism- does not reconstruct as rational the central part of the work of the majority of them. The main thrust of the paper is doublefold. First, a new methodology -abstracted from the analysis of the core of Economic Theory- is proposed which enlarges the scope of rationality in Economics. Second, this new methodology -dubbed the Fix Point Methodology- is posited as a general scientific one. As such it opens new vistas on Truth, specially the conjecture that Reality is a changing entity and the consequent call for professional honesty.

There are five basic types of ontology of law identified in relation with the singling out simpIe ontological objects in a strong or weak sense, dualist ontological objects, and complex ontalogical objects in a strong or weak sense. The conceptians of law far mulated in the theories/philosophies/ of law are ascribed to these five types.

The main aims of this paper are two: first, to show that the current situation of History of Logic is far from being satisfactory, and second, to put forward a programme for its improvement. To this end it is as well, I think, to take into account a new conceptual and historiographical approach to growth of Iogic as a discipline, some basic notions in this regard -e.g., the notion of being a contribution to develop ment of Iogic-, and some others compIementary aspects, commonly neglected by the History of Logic scholars.