Cercetare filosofia stiintei programe master

The Centre for the Logic, History and Philosophy of Science is an interdisciplinary research centre, founded in 2008, exploring ... CELFIS is one of most active centers at the University of Bucharest. Its members are constantly taking part in diverse research projects - both national and international wide. Our center is dedicated to building and foresting a relatively new-born field in Romania, while at the same time highly encourages and supports partnership with students aiming at a research oriented or academic careers worldwide.


The Research Seminar

Our invited gests - 2010-2011:

Stephen Gaukroger (University of Sydney), Maarten Van Dyck (University of Ghent), Gheorghe Stratan (Institutul de Fizica), Miklos Redei (LSE), Bryan Hall (Indiana University Southeast).

Evening Meetings in Science

"The Friday Seminar":

in collaboration with the research center FEM and New Europe College

PCE Seminar


Cercetare filosofia stiintei programe master

From natural history to science: the emergent of experimental philosophy (CNCS, director - Lect. Dana Jalobeanu duration: 2012-2015).

Theoretical and Methodological Fundamentals in Modelling the Dynamics of Complex Socio-Ecological Systems (CNCISIS, director conf. dr. Laurenţiu Staicu, duration: 2006-2008)

The European University and the Institutionalization of Knowledge: values, culture, and the basis for modern higher education in the change of institutional setting of contemporary universities. (CNCISIS, director conf. dr. Romulus Brâncoveanu, duration: 2005-2007)


The House of Solomon, philosopher- kings and the pedagogy of virtue: early modern utopias as pedagogical projects. Director of project: Dana Jalobeanu Research project ID, financed by CNCISIS

The research project gathers together a team from Western University “Vasile Goldis” (Oana Matei, Cristi Bente) and University of Bucharest (Sorana Coreneanu, Sorin Costreie, Doina Cristina Rusu). The 3 year project will explore several early modern utopias from the perspective of education and the reformation of human beings, in an interdisciplinary context, grouping together well-known texts with a number of unexplored and practically unknown sources of the same period (early modernity). Volume: Solomon’s Houses: the legacy of Bacon’s New Atlantis

The Medicine of the Mind and Natural Philosophy in Early Modern England. A New Way of Interpreting Francis Bacon

Principal investigator: Guido Giglioni (The Warburg Institute)
Co-investigators: Dana Jalobeanu, Sorana Corneanu (University of Bucharest)
Host institutions: The Warburg Institute, School of Advanced Study, University of London
New Europe College – Institute of Advanced Studies, Bucharest

Our project aims to provide a reappraisal of Bacon’s work and his legacy in the seventeenth century by focusing on a set of interrelated disciplinary contexts that, for reasons of interpretative and heuristic convenience, we have decided to call the early modern 'medicine of the mind'. In doing so, we will be able to make sense of many aspects of Bacon’s work that still remain obscure and, as an added bonus, to clarify a number of long debated questions concerning seventeenth-century science and natural philosophy.

A short presentation of this project. Download from here.


From natural history to science: the emergent of experimental philosophy (CNCS, director - Lect. Dana Jalobeanu duration: 2012-2015).

The widespread and longstanding belief that early modern science coincides with or originates in the “new” natural philosophy of the mid and late seventeenth century has been the longstanding cannon in the history and philosophy of science. More recently, this claim was refined, questioned and challenged. Natural philosophy was shown to be a loosely defined category (Lüthy 2000). It was also shown to be a general umbrella for types and kinds of diverse and dissimilar investigations of nature. Peter Anstey has convincingly shown that one should distinguish between two kinds of natural philosophy: speculative and experimental (Anstey 2005), a distinction providing the methodological framework within which natural philosophy was practiced and interpreted in the seventeenth century. Other approaches have multiplied the kinds of natural philosophy at work in the seventeenth century. Seen from this perspective, therefore, the road from natural philosophy to science is not as straightforward as once believed.

The standard story until very recently was that experimental philosophy (early modern science) developed in the second part of the seventeenth century in close connection with the establishment of scientific academies and the emergence of a new attitude towards nature. According to this direction of research, experimental philosophy was based on “facts”: theory-free units of knowledge and practice, sometimes socially constructed and essentially transferable from one theoretical context to another (Daston 1991, 1995; Dear 1995; Shapin 1995). Moreover, the study of “facts” was seen as intrinsically connected with questions of evidence, testability, credibility and witnessing (Dear 1995; Johns 1999; Costa 2002; Shapiro 2002, Yeo 2007).

Consequently, the study of the origin and development of experimental philosophy has brought into the picture a discipline rather neglected by the historians of the scientific revolution, namely natural history. More precisely, it brought into focus a particular kind of natural history: the Baconian natural history of the late seventeenth-century.

Our project aims to continue this line of research while challenging its boundaries. We aim to bring new actors in this debate about the origins of early modern science, showing that the diversity of natural historical traditions equals or even surpasses that of the natural philosophies. Unfortunately, most of these forms of natural history have escaped so far the attention of the historians and philosophers of science. Most of the philosophers of science studying the early modern thought are still working within the Kuhnian divide between the mathematical and the experimental traditions that turns natural history into a caricature (Kuhn 1977). On the other hand, if historians of science have focused on Baconian natural history, historians of the Renaissance have equated natural history with a Plinian and Humanist tradition reaching maturity in the mid sixteenth-century, or what has been recently labeled “a science of describing” (Ogilvie 2006). Moreover, there is a striking divide between these two types of historical research. For the historian of science, Humanist natural histories are irrelevant to the emergence of early modern science. For the historian of natural history, Bacon’s role in the picture is unclear (Findlen, 1995) if he is not completely left out (Ogilvie, 2006).

Our project aims to fill this gap and bridge this divide. By putting together historians of science, philosophers of science and intellectual historians, we aim to show what one can gain from a thorough investigation of the late sixteenth-century natural histories and the study of the emergence of Baconian experimental philosophy in this context. More precisely, we claim that the early modern concept of experimentation originates in some of the unexplored natural histories of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century. In order to do this, we will investigate in the first instance various forms of natural history scattered in writings classified so far as cosmographies, astronomical treatises, moral and medical anatomies, treatises on the human soul etc. We will show in what way one can see, behind the apparent diversity, a common interest in a certain kind of empirical investigations of nature, which is oriented towards problem-solving strategies and built upon the creative nature of experimentation. We will especially investigate the role of empirical observations and experiments within various forms of natural history, showing their complex relations with the theoretical and methodological content. Then, we will explore the ways in which Francis Bacon transformed the meaning of experimentation within natural history and used it as a basis for natural philosophy.

Our project opens novel aspects and issues in the study of early modern experimentation. On the one hand, we will disentangle the discussion of the nature and function of experiments from its age-long association with questions of testimony, credibility and evidence. Without questioning the role of experimentation in the assessment of scientific theories, we will show that experiments play an equally essential role in the context of (scientific) discovery: experiments function as problem-solving devices and methods of triggering creative analogies. Exploratory experimentation (Steinle 1999, 2002) is doubled by the creative role of experiment in generating natural histories. From this perspective, we will offer a new assessment of the importance and novelty of Bacon’s scientific contributions, in a more general and cross-disciplinary context of the early natural histories and we will discuss a number of interesting and yet unexplored meanings of Baconianism in the mid seventeenth century. Besides offering a new way of assessing the role and importance of Bacon’s natural history and clarifying the meaning of the Baconian concept of experiment and experimentation, our project will attempt to bridge a number of gaps in the current discipline-oriented research and offer a more integrated approach to questions pertaining to the nature, emergence and development of early modern science.

For more details see link