EUROPEAN PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE ASSOCIATION

| Epistemic Diversity in European Philosophy of Science

Why a seminar series on epistemic diversity?

Epistemic diversity, understood broadly as the diversity of ways of approaching the study of a subject matter within an intellectual community, has been a topic of increasing interest for philosophers of science in the last ten-odd years. Building on this, the European Philosophy of Science Association (EPSA) invites submissions of abstracts for its first-ever online seminar series, dedicated to investigating and promoting the epistemic diversity of European philosophy of science. A central aim of this seminar series will be to showcase historical figures, institutes, schools of thought, or themes that have shaped the discipline of philosophy of science in different regions of Europe and across time. In focusing on different ‘European philosophies of science’, EPSA strives to contribute to an increased awareness of intellectual traditions that have been overlooked or forgotten by the international philosophy-of-science community. We are particularly interested in rediscovering traditions rooted in languages and cultures other than English, although we will be using English as a working language for online presentations and discussions.

Seminar Sessions 2026

Below are the programmes for our seminar sessions:

This session of the seminar will feature:

15:00 - 16:00 (CET)
Valeriya Chasova (Utrecht University), Deborinians and mechanists per se and as precursors to Western philosophers of science

PRESENTATION ABSTRACT

From mid-20th century on up to the recent times Western philosophers of science have been concentrating in particular on two questions: the choice between ordinary or scientific sources for metaphysics, and the emergence or reduction among branches of science (and their objects). It turns out that on either question they were preceded by the two groups of Soviet philosophers of science, dialectics or deborinians and mechanists. Their discussions date back already to the early 20th century, when the Western research was dominated by the anti-metaphysical Vienna Circle. Moreover, the Soviet debate also has its own originality which might be inspiring for philosophers of today. In the talk will be presented the context in which these now less-known groups of philosophers were existing, their own debate, and its comparison with modern ones.

This session of the seminar will feature:

15:00 - 16:00 (CET)
Ties van Gemert (Tilburg University), From Idonéisme to Dialectica: Ferdinand Gonseth’s Program for European Philosophy of Science

SHORT ABSTRACT (click here for the full abstract)

Mostly forgotten today, the Swiss philosopher, Ferdinand Gonseth (1890-1975), was in the 1950s one of the most influential figures in European philosophy of science. Through the conference series Entretiens de Zurich (EdZ), the journal Dialectica, and his presidency of the International Union of Philosophy of Science (IUPS), he worked relentlessly to promote a program called idonéisme (from the Latin idoneus, meaning “efficacious”). Our paper will trace the rise and fall of Gonseth’s program. First, we trace Gonseth’s shift in the 1920s from mathematics to philosophy of science, focusing on the role played by the concept of efficacy in his work. Next, we turn to the 1930s, when Gonseth began to promote idonéisme at the International Congresses for the Unity of Science (ICUS) and his EdZ. We will analyze idonéisme through its opposition to logical empiricism, particularly via Gonseth’s correspondence with Otto Neurath and his debates with Philipp Frank. Last, we turn to the post-war period, during which Gonseth founded Dialectica and became the president of the IUPS, narrating his intellectual and institutional clash with Alfred Tarski and his eventual defeat. In conclusion, we will reflect on the place and role of Gonseth’s idonéisme in our understanding of twentieth-century European philosophy of science.

This session of the seminar will feature:

15:00 - 16:00 (CET)
Larisa Gogianu and Andreea Eșanu (Europe College IAS Bucharest), Mircea Flonta’s concept of scientific images

SHORT ABSTRACT (click here for the full abstract)

This presentation introduces the work of Romanian philosopher of science Mircea Flonta, who has developed a distinction between scientific knowledge and scientific images that is largely unknown outside Romania. Flonta's starting point is a problem familiar to philosophers of science: how to account for both the continuity and the apparent discontinuity of scientific change and scientific progress. Scientific knowledge, in Flonta’s sense, consists of results that can be reproduced and controlled by any competent researcher. These results, which are empirical, are cumulative: they are also the basis for theories. Scientific images, by contrast, are not empirical, and they are only partially dependent on such results. Counterintuitively, even if they are not empirical, they can be overturned. What we call, in Thomas Kuhn’s (1962) sense, scientific revolutions, are, according to Flonta, changes in scientific images, not in scientific knowledge itself. In this sense, Einstein’s theory of relativity did not overturn Newtonian physics (they are both still valid today); rather, with Einstein’s relativity, a new scientific image of the physical universe replaced an earlier one.

Call for Abstracts (2nd Edition) - Topics

Examples of possible topics include, but are not limited to:

1. The historical development of a school of thought, tradition or movement in philosophy of science that is distinctive to a particular region or country in Europe. For example: 

    • French historical epistemology,
    • The Munich School of structuralism,
    • The Lviv-Warsaw School in Poland,
    • The Uppsala School in Sweden,
    • The Dutch Significs Circle,
    • The Belgian World Views programme.

2. Different national or institutional approaches to the way in which philosophy of science is or has been taught. For example:

    • Philosophy of science being part of ‘theoretical philosophy’ in the Netherlands and Germany,
    • Mandatory philosophy of science courses tailored to non-philosophy students in some European countries (e.g. Denmark),
    • Philosophy of science and logic being taught as one subject in Serbian high schools.

3. One or several historical figures that have been influential in the development of philosophy of science in their corresponding geographical region. For example:

    • The influence of Kazimierz Twardowski and other members of the Lviv-Warsaw School on the development of Polish philosophy of science,
    • Grete Hermann and the development of the philosophy of quantum mechanics and physics education in Germany,
    • The Austrian philosopher Wolfgang Stegmüller and the development of the Munich School of structuralism,
    • Arne Næss and the development of philosophy of science in Norway,
    • Eino Kaila and the development of philosophy of science in Finland,
    • Lembit Valt and the study of the methodology of science in Estonia,
    • E.W. Beth and the study of the logic in the Netherlands,
    • Else M. Barth’s influence on the development of empirical logic in the Netherlands and Norway.

4. National or institutional histories related to the development of philosophy of science qua discipline. For example:

    • The installment of ‘classi di abilitazioni’ in Italy,
    • The institutional history of the Amsterdam logic tradition,
    • Reflections on the founding and development of philosophy-of-science journals (e.g. Synthese in the Netherlands, Erkenntnis in Germany, and Theoria in Sweden) or book series (e.g. the Poznań Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities in Poland),
    • The emergence of ‘history and philosophy of science’ departments in Europe.

5. In addition to the kinds of topics mentioned above, we also welcome presentations on the more general questions relating to epistemic diversity in the context of European philosophy of science. For example:

    • How does the status of English as the discipline’s lingua franca shape the practice of philosophy of science?
    • What are the benefits and challenges of integrating so-called analytical and continental approaches to philosophy of science?
    • Does a ‘practice perspective’ help bridge the gap between philosophy and the sciences?

How to submit your abstracts

We are currently inviting submissions for the next round of the EPSA Epistemic Diversity in European Philosophy of Science seminars, taking place online  on the following dates: Wednesdays May 20, June 17, August 26, 2026, from 14:00-16:00.

Presentations will be between 20 and 30 minutes in length, depending on the number of submissions. Submissions may discuss work-in-progress as well as already published work. In the latter case, please provide a reference to the paper in question.

In order to apply, please submit an abstract of maximum 300 words before or on March 15, 2026, to: epsa.seminar@gmail.com, along with your name, position, institutional affiliation, and the dates of availability among the above options.

In preparing the programme, the organizers will strive for geographical diversity in the countries/regions discussed. However, please note that both the abstract and the presentation are required to be in English. If you are submitting published work in a language other than English, please send the original abstract together with an English translation.

© 2026 European Philosophy of Science Association

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software