Our aim in this paper is to analyse the possibilities of a logical or epistemological equivalence between the projets of R. Dedekind and G. Frege for the foundations of arithmetic. It is well know that both of them have a “logicist” point of vew. But we think that even if some coincidences exist in the wa y they define the main concepts of arithmetic, some important differences remain.

In this paper the role of values in scientific and technological processes of inquiry is discussed. It is argued that a distinction between science and technology cannot any longer be attempted on the basis of being based upon respectively different sets of values and aims. Furthermore, it is argued that usually these attempts have wrongly characterised science and technology in terms of a fixed and immutable set of aims, values and norms. This sort of characterisation has often been put forward not only for the purposes of such a distinction but as a general idea in philosophy of science. Some of the problems of such and approach are discussed, particularly by examining some recent ideas of Shapere and Laudan, concerning the processes of consensus shaping in the sciences. So, it is concluded that we have to reject the idea that both science and technology are based on a technical interest in knowledge, an idea that normally blurrs the significance of changes at their axiological level, as much as the conception that science and technology belong to completely different camps, which quite often takes their respective axiological levels as immutable.

There is a frequent attitude of scholars against the quantification of Social Sciences. Our purpose here consists of describing the central topic of quantification, namely the measure ment topic by the axiomatic method. We emphasize the significance of measurement axioms for building the laws of experimental knowledge. The first step which seems unavoidable for every measuring process, thus the order structure, is presented as the initial topic which must be followed up by the more sophisticated topics in the future. The above mentioned attitude against the quantification is disclosed as a prejudice without any rational support given the actual scientific development of measurement.

Con la ayuda de un diagrama y aplicando la formula del agrimensor, los matemáticos de la Antigua Babilonia descubrieron un método sencillo y elegante de bisecar figuras trapezoidales. En este trabajo intentaremos demostrar, únicamente como conjetura, que en el “Problema de los Seis hermanos” - Tablilla AO 17264 - se pudo haber manejado este mismo procedimiento, aunque ampliado y generalizado.The Mathematicians of the Old Babylonian Period, with the aid of a diagram and applying the surveyor formula, discovered a simple and smart method to bisect trapezoidal figures. In this paper, we will try to demonstrate, only as a conjecture, that in the Problem of Six Brothers, Tablet AO 17264, it could be used the same procedure, although extended and generalized.

Tradicionalmente, las discusiones acerca del análisis correcto del concepto de justificación epistémica se han centrado en la justificación de creencias. Este artículo sugiere que hay una correlación filosóficamente interesante entre las nociones de ‘justificación epistémica’ y de ‘práctica’. Se argumenta que, con base en tres conocidos argumentos wittgensteinianos (el del regreso infinito de reglas, cl de la subdeterminación de las reglas por las regularidades observadas y contra el lenguaje privado), es posible mostrar la relevancia de las prácticas para Ja evaluación epistemica -algo que mina la utilidad dei reduccionismo tradicional para la epistemología.Traditionally the discussion concerning the correct analysis of the concept of epistemic justification has centered on the justification of beliefs. This paper suggest that there is a philosophically interesting correlation among the notions of ‘epistemic justification’ and ‘practices’. I argue that based on three well-known wittgensteinian arguments (the infinite return of rules, the subdeterminacióon of the rules by observed regularities, and against the private language) it is possible to show the relevance of practices for epistemic evaluation - something which undermines the usefulness of traditional reductionism to epistemology.

Peter Dear ha proporcionado recientemente un análisis de la transformación que sufrió el recurso a la experiencia en la filosofía natural del siglo XVll. De la experiencia de lo cotidiano se pasa a la descripción detallada de una experiencia artificial irrepetible, localizada espacio-temporalmente y producida por instrumentos más o menos complejos. EI artículo explora dicha interpretación en referencia a la construcción de la ciencia del movimiento de Galileo, mediante un análisis dcl experimento del plano inclinado que se describe en los Discorsi y un manuscrito, y concluye que la interpretacion de Dear dificulta considerablemente la caracterización de la práctica de Galileo.Peter Dear has recently put forward an analysis of th transformation underwent by the appeal to experience in Seventeenth-Century natural philosophy. According to Dear, this transformation lies in the change from common experience to the detailed description of an unrepeatable artificial experience space temporally located and produced by more or less sophisticated instruments. This paper explores Dear’s interpretation with regard to the construction of Galileo’s science of motion, by analyzing the celebrated inclined plane experiment described in the Discorsi as well as one of Galileo's manuscripts and concludes that Dear’s interpretation makes very difficult the characterization of Galileo’s practice.

En el debate entre contextualistas y anticontextualistas, señala Recanati, los últimos aventajan a los primeros por un argumento atribuible a Grice. Este argumento tiene como premisa el Principio del Paralelismo que, según Recanati, convierte al argumento en circular y a la posición anticontextualista en injustificada. Si bien considero este argumento anticontcxtualista inadecuado, demostraré que no es atribuible a Grice. Grice no puede admitir el Principio del Paralelismo si se tiene en cuenta la explicación que elabora para cienos ejemplos y su teoría de las implicaturas. Grice, según esa explicación y algunas de sus propuestas, se muestra como un contextualista.Recanati holds that, in the contextualism vs. anti-contextualism debate, the latter view has received more support thant he former thanks to an argument that can be placed in some of Grice’s writings. Such argument has the Parallelism Principle as a premise, a principle that, Recanati argues, makes the argument circular and the contextualist position unjustified. Although I consider this anticontextualist argument unjustifed, I will show that it cannot be attributed to Grice. By considering his explanation of certain examples and his theory of implicatura, I will show that Grice does not admit the Parallelism principle. This reveals Grice to be a contextualist.

La Iglesia ha dado por zanjado el caso Galileo en más de una ocasion. No obstante, la polémica ha continuado. Aquí se argumenta que las distintas iniciativas de la Iglesia respecto al caso Galileo -la revision de la condena dei copernicanismo a partir de 1820; la utilización de los documentos dei dossier inquisitorial de Galileo a partir de 1850 y la polémica suscitada; el caso Paschini (1942-1965); y las conclusiones de Juan Pablo II en 1992-1993- ponen de manifiesto la misma actitud de la Iglesia y la persistencia de los intereses básicos de partida, que hacen muy improbable que el “caso de Galileo”, al margen de los problemas genuinamente históricos, pueda cerrarse.Althoght the Catholic Church has setlled “Galileo’s case” several times, the controverse goes on. I argue that Church’s initatives on this matter -the revision of the condenmation of copernicanism from 1820; the use of documents coming from Galileo’s inquisitorial dossier from 1850 on and the controversy raised by this use; Paschini case (1942-1965); and the conclusions drawn by pope John Paul II in 1992-1993- make evident the identical actitude of the Church as well as the persistence of his basic interests, which make very unlikely that Galileo’s case, regardless of genuine historical problems, call be considered as closed.