Abstract:We live in a contradictory world. Self-proclaimed “skeptics”, as the original meaning itself suggests, should first of all strive for proper scientific rationality, for reflective and objective distancing in the apprehension of reality, for methodological caution and for the extended ability to theoretical and philosophical understanding of intricate problems, in practice, too often have entrenched themselves in dogmatic groups. Inquisitors often endowed with the appearance of religious fanaticism, in the worst sense of the term, invest their energies in a crusade of attacks to everyone to whom they attribute mistakes, naivety or even bad intentions. In practice, the universe of those who do not fit in their often restricted, idealized and naïve views of scientific practice. With them, there is hardly any possibility of frank dialogue or opening to research fields that escape their conceptions of what science and philosophy can approach and how they should operate. Charlatans, backward, believers, superstitious; these are some disqualifications generally granted to researchers who dare to go beyond the limits they established for science and rationality. To substantiate their certainties, such self-proclaimed skeptics often claim to base their approach to science on the examples given by highly regarded scientists and philosophers of the past. We speak here of scholars of the stature of Giordano Bruno, Francis Bacon, René Descartes, Isaac Newton, the Encyclopedists, Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer, Sigmund Freud, James Frazer, the Vienna Circle, Max Weber, etc. Despite their different approaches, we are talking about many of the very founders of modern Western knowledge. The self-proclaimed contemporary “skeptics” claim their inscriptions in the tradition inaugurated by these illustrious intellectual ancestors. They claim to defend with determination such a rationalist tradition against “pseudoscientists” and “mystic-religious" philosophers who, according to their opinions, wish to corrupt it through insidious insertions in a field that would not rightfully belong to them. This would be their main mission.

Bruno Latour and Peculiar Structure of the First Scientific Revolution

Renaissance magic as a step towards secularism: Agrippa, Bruno, Campanella

Special Issue: After the Scientific Revolution: Thinking Globally about the Histories of the Modern Sciences

The revolution in physics of the early Nineteenth century revisited in the context of science-and-society interaction

The Scientific Revolution in Art

The "Revolution in chemistry and physics." Overthrow of a reigning paradigm or competition between contemporary research programs?

Is There Another Kind of Scientific Revolution?——On Peter Galison and His Trading Zone Theory

Via Experientiae:Bacon’s and Descartes’contribution to the method and foundation of modern sciences

The Reception of the Copernican Revolution Among Provençal Humanists of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries

Baroque Mind-set and New Science a Dialectic of Seventeenth-Century High Culture

The place of Archimedes in world history

[From relativism to evaluation. Recent trends in the historiography of science and the humanities]

Scientific pluralism and the Chemical Revolution

The concepts of «cultural explosion» by Y. M. Lotman, scientific revolutions by T. Kuhn and «three-stage development of science» by V. S. Stepin: comparative analysis

On Scientific Revolution:Comparison Between the "structural" and the "Dynamic"

Einstein in the crossroad of the sciences, arts and humanities

The relativity revolution from the perspective of historical epistemology

The Myth of Disenchantment: Magic, Modernity, and the Birth of the Human Sciences by Jason A. Josephson-Storm

The Communication of Meaning and Information , and the Structuration of Expectations as Discursive Knowledge Introduction

Kuhn’s Theory of Incommensurability: A Special Reference to Theory of Meaning

History of the NeoClassical Interpretation of Quantum and Relativistic Physics