Ismet Sahin: Thought and Philosophy

İsmet Şahin (Turkish pronunciation: [ismet ʃahin]; born 01 February 1969) is a Turkish thinker:^[1], author^[2][3], publisher^[4], politician^[5],and ultramarathon runner^[6]. İsmet was influenced by Aristotle, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx. He has been a strong proponent of Marxism, right up to the book The Child Escaped the Classroom, which is a critique of Marxism as a whole. He always refers to Aristotle, [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Hegel and Marx as his masters. However, he likens his position to that of Aristotle before Plato and Marx against Hegel. Like classical philosophers, he has worked with all his might to solve every problem that humanity puts before it. Under the captivity of time, he was only able to work on certain subjects. He has done deep research in almost every field of philosophy. But especially the history of science and philosophy were the topics that attracted his attention the most. Along with only studies of quantum physics, ⁣ philosophy of science and especially philosophy of physics became an area where he concentrated. Starting from his high school years, İsmet Şahin conducted and published a wide range of scientific studies, mostly in the field of philosophy, from politics to social sciences, from workers’ rights to the rights of oppressed nations, from the history of science to philosophy of science, from economy to global capitalism. İsmet Şahin was not content with only theoretical studies. He has been active in politics all his life, starting with his high school years. He published and directed many political newspapers. Furthermore, he became an independent parliamentary candidate a few times, but never succeeded in being elected. İsmet Şahin focused on the philosophy of physics after coming to terms with his own past theory, Marxism. He is currently working on the philosophy of science, the history of science, and the philosophy of quantum physics.

Born	February 1, 1969 (age 55) Osmaniye, Artvin, Turkey
🏳️ Nationality	Turkey
🏫 Education	Hacettepe University Department of Philosophy
💼 Occupation
🏢 Organization	Praksis Publishing and Praksis Magazine (since 1996). Artvin Ultra Trail (2017-2018)
Notable work	Anti Kapitalist Manifest, Sınıftan Kaçan Çocuk, Quantum Filozofi
Predecessor	Aristoteles, Hegel, Marx
Movement	Libertarian, Contemporary Philosophy, There is no closed whole: New understanding of history, society, economics, epistemology and politics, Atheist
👩 Spouse(s)	Married 1991–divorsed 2000
👶 Children	Deniz Şahin

İsmet Şahin was born on 1 February 1969 in Osmaniye village, located in the Kemalpaşa district of Artvin Province, in the northern part of Turkey. He was the fourth of five children, with three sisters and two brothers.

Ismet’s formative years were spent in a family engaged in tea cultivation and sheep farming, a period marked by a significant transition in their livelihood. At the age of six, his family relocated to Aydinlikevler in Ankara, where he commenced his primary school education at Aydinlikevler Primary School. He subsequently pursued his studies at Mehmet Akif Secondary School and Aydinlikevler High School. In 1988, Ismet Şahin commenced his studies at Hacettepe University, enrolling in the Department of Philosophy. However, his academic career was brought to an abrupt end in 1991 as a consequence of his involvement in political activities, which resulted in his detention and subsequent expulsion from the university. During this period, Ismet entered into a marital union with his university partner in 1991. They subsequently relocated to Istanbul, where they subsequently had a son, Deniz, in 1997. The couple divorced in 2000, after which Ismet returned to Ankara. In 2012, Şahin was granted amnesty and permitted to resume his studies at Hacettepe University. He graduated in 2014 with a thesis focusing on the Philosophy of Science. Ismet Şahin currently resides in Ankara with his son. During the summer months, he resides in Kemalpaşa, where he engages in tea farming, which constitutes the primary source of his income. He continues to earn the majority of his income through tea farming, reflecting his strong connection to his roots.

İsmet Şahin’s Political Philosophy: Radical Change and Social-Economic Justice

Olive workers are on strike with İsmet Şahin

Ismet Şahin’s political vision represents a compelling argument for transformative change and social justice. His approach challenges the established political and economic systems, advocating for a society that prioritises equality, fairness, and human dignity. At the core of Şahin’s vision lies the conviction that genuine progress can only be attained by challenging and transforming the prevailing structures of power, including capitalism, to foster a more inclusive and just society. A central tenet of his philosophy is the concept of radical transformation. According to Şahin, incremental reforms are inadequate for addressing the deeply entrenched social injustices. Instead, he proposes a comprehensive restructuring of the social, political, and economic systems that perpetuate inequality. Such issues as wealth disparity, access to education, healthcare and the protection of human rights, particularly for marginalised communities, must also be addressed. Additionally, Şahin’s political stance is intertwined with his philosophical views, which draw on radical critique to explore the necessity of reshaping societal norms and values. His philosophy posits a return to the fundamental principles of justice and equality, which should inform not only political movements but also everyday life. From this perspective, İsmet Şahin’s political vision extends beyond mere policy change; it encompasses a radical transformation in the collective consciousness of society. The transformation he envisions extends beyond political action, aiming to inspire a philosophical reimagining of what it means to live in a just society. By combining a call for political change with a deep philosophical commitment to justice, Ismet Şahin’s political vision offers a comprehensive framework for addressing the systemic issues that continue to shape the modern world. İsmet Şahin is among the generation of individuals who played a pivotal role in organizing the inaugural political freedom activity following the September 12 military coup. Ismet initiated his political activities at an early age, participating in the socialist movement in Ankara. He initiated his political activities at the journal Gökyüzü, which commenced publication in 1984 at the age of 15. He participated in the founding convention of the Socialist Party at the İnci cinema in Istanbul Beşiktaş. He delivered the speech on behalf of the younger members of the group.

Aşama Gençlik Dergisi

Subsequently, he proceeded to engage in further activities within the socialist political milieu designated as Kurtuluş (KSD). In 1987, he published Liseli Genç magazine, which served as the official publication of Devlis. Additionally, he played a role in the establishment of Yeni Aşama, Yeni Öncü magazines and the newspaper İşçi Dünyası. Until 1991, he fulfilled a variety of roles at different levels within the same political structure. In 1991, following a series of discussions concerning the potential for a separate organisation of Kurdish workers, the structure of democratic mass organisations, the class character of the USSR, and the challenges of revolution and organisation, he departed from Kurtuluş and established a new political structure in collaboration with his colleagues. At the age of 21, he was detained in 1990 for establishing and administering the organisation known as Communist Worker. The defendants were tried and acquitted due to a lack of evidence. He was a member of the editorial board of the journal Socialist Worker, which commenced publication in 1992, and the Journals of Workers and Politics. In 1996, he published the journal Praksis. Furthermore, he established the Praksis publishing house. He served as the editor-in-chief of the Sokak newspaper, which commenced publication at the end of 1996. Additionally, he has been responsible for the publication of the Street Newspaper for one year. In 2001, he assumed responsibility for the publication of the Communist Worker newspaper. Concurrently, he published a collection entitled Imperialism and a pamphlet entitled Why Marxism is Against Terrorism.

Imperialism

In 2006, while they were engaged in ongoing political and theoretical work as the Praksis circle, they accepted an invitation from the Democratic Society Party (DTP) to contribute to the Turkishisation efforts of Turkish intellectuals. It participates in the DTP administration. In the 2007 general elections, he stood as the common left-wing candidate for the position of Independent Deputy for Bin Umut in Balıkesir. After the electoral process, he departed from the aforementioned political party and resumed his independent scientific pursuits. Subsequently, İsmet Şahin became an independent parliamentary candidate representing the 2nd district of Istanbul in all subsequent elections. In the 2018 Turkish presidential elections, İsmet announced his candidacy. However, he was unable to meet the financial requirements for candidacy, namely the sum of 130 thousand TL, and thus was unable to pursue the candidacy.

İsmet Şahin A Passion for Athletics and Ultra-Marathons that has Ruled His Life from Childhood to the Present Day

Alanya Ultra Trail

İsmet Şahin commenced his athletic career at the tender age of 11 when he enrolled in the 100-metre sprint. In 1981, he was accepted into the Yıl Sports School in Ankara. From this early introduction to sports, his passion for running developed into a lifelong commitment, particularly in the disciplines of marathon and ultra-marathon running. Throughout his career, he has participated in a multitude of races in Turkey and abroad, exemplifying not only his physical endurance but also his mental resilience.

Petersburg. White Nights Marathon

Over the past 13 years, Şahin has focused his attention on ultra-marathons, challenging the limits of human endurance in races that extend beyond the conventional marathon distance of 42.195 kilometres (26.2 miles). His longest recorded ultra-marathon distance is an impressive 110 kilometres, which serves as a testament to his remarkable physical and mental resilience. These races frequently occur in challenging environments, such as trails and mountainous terrain, necessitating rigorous preparation and adaptability. Notable among his achievements is his participation in the White Nights Marathon in St. Petersburg, which is renowned for its challenging conditions and scenic route. His achievements in this and other races, including the Nashira Ultra, İznik Ultra, Sapanca Ultra, Antalya Ultra, and the Cappadocia Ultra, have resulted in the acquisition of numerous medals, thereby establishing his reputation as a dedicated and accomplished runner on the international stage. In addition to his role as a competitor, Şahin has made significant contributions to the global trail-running community as a member of the International Trail Running Association (ITRA). His expertise and passion for ultra-running led him to organise the Artvin Ultra Trail, an international ultra-marathon event held in 2017 and 2018 in the Artvin region of Turkey. The races attracted participants from around the globe, underscoring both the area’s natural splendour and Şahin’s leadership within the ultra-marathon community. Ismet Şahin’s dual role as both an athlete and an organiser reflects his profound comprehension of the sport, not merely as a vehicle for personal accomplishment but as a means of uniting runners and advancing endurance athletics on a global scale. His career in ultra-marathons serves as an exemplar of his enduring dedication to transcending physical and mental limitations, resonating with his broader philosophical perspective on life and human potential.

Thought and Philosophy

Background of Ismet’s Philosophy

The book in which he wrote his own views from a Marxist perspective: The Anti-Capitalist Manifesto

As can be understood from his writings, İsmet Şahin had a classical Marxist perspective in his early political periods. He wrote, his own book Anti-Capitalist Manifesto^[3] “Historians of the human societies of the future will say, “they were not human” when evaluating the people of today. This phrase, which Engels used to describe the situation of the working class in England, where capitalism first appeared on the stage of history, has now been realized by including the whole world. The four hundred years of development of capitalism have brought nothing but intensifying the exploitation of the working classes throughout history. But for the first time, the workers, who are held captive by this relationship of exploitation, have obtained the objective historical conditions that will save the entire society along with them. While capitalism paved the way for the salvation of all humanity with the “gravediggers” it created, it also established the most barbaric relationship of exploitation in the history of all humanity. To perpetuate this barbarism, capitalism has massacred millions of people in two worlds and hundreds of local wars. Although many wars are going on today, countries spend nearly half of their budgets on military investments to continue the exploitation of their own lands and other peoples of the world. The US alone spends $800 billion, twice as much as the rest of the world spends on arms. Even a single example is enough to show the extent of the exaggeration in armament. The price of B2, Stealth bombers, is $2.3 billion.^[13] It is the most expensive fighter aircraft ever built. Each plane is worth three times the value of its own weight of gold. But in the United States, the poorest 20% of the population is poorer than the poorest 20% of Egypt, India, Argentina, and Indonesia.^[14] The fact that every daring revolt of the working class against the abolition of these exploitative relations, in individual countries and the world as a whole, results in defeat, leads to a further riveting of the barbarity of capitalism. The continuation of this hegemony of barbarism will justify historians of human society. Roughly speaking, saying that determinism supports socialism would rather be a crude, fatalistic interpretation of Marxism. The historical necessity stated by Marx includes the counterforce that the working class will undertake. Capitalist barbarism will continue to exist as long as the working class and the oppressed do not appear on the stage of history in order not to be ruled and to rule themselves. It is clear that history is created by the classes that mark their course. Barbarism continues its exploitation by reproducing itself at the economic, political and ideological levels. It does not hesitate to use its militarist forces whenever this reproduction is in danger. But capitalism is not just an instrument of military repression. Capitalism has spontaneity and therefore an ease that attracts the individuals within it. In daily life, if the individual is not equipped enough, he easily surrenders himself to objectivity, to the yoke of capitalism. Humanization efforts and thoughts of individuals require a consciousness, will and a continuous activity fed from them. Marxism is the scientific guide of the individual who desires emancipation. While Marxism demonstrates to the working class the ways to save the society as a whole, along with itself, it also shows the individual that the guarantee of his salvation lies in the participation of the working class in this historical action. The liberation of the individual is his participation in his transformation with the consciousness of history.”^[3] “The coincidence of change or self-change of circumstances and human activity can only be grasped and understood rationally and through revolutionized practice”.^[15] (Marx)

An abstract of the philosophy of İsmet Şahin

Emancipation of Individual

İsmet Şahin’s book, which also has a reckoning with his own theory of the past, in which Marx developed a completely different theoretical perspective of many fundamental subjects such as history, dialectical method, class struggle, critique of capitalism and understanding of science: Sınıftan Kaçan Çocuk

“No form of Marxism has consistently solved the problem of individual freedom. More than that, it has placed the individual under the determination of organisation, society, class, state and ideology. The individual is only a class-determined element in Marxism. The emancipation of the individual is constantly postponed to the “other world”, to the supposedly coming social order, to the hoped-for “golden age” on the Christian model. For this reason, all kinds of demands are made not for individual freedoms, but directly for the freedom of the class. The individual will attain these freedoms as a member of the class. The freedom of the individual is mediated by social structures. Therefore, the individual can easily be sacrificed in favour of a class and a country. However, if you open the freedom spaces of the individual, you will see that the whole society will be liberated by itself. It can be seen that the traditions of Marxism could not break away from the scientific paradigm of the 19th century and were shaped by the completely negative political environment of the Cold War period. Therefore, they relate the emancipation of the individual to the socialist society that will emerge through the collective action of the working class, i.e. to the future paradise. For this reason, they cannot give an answer to the problem of the freedom of the individual in the present.^[2]

History and Class Struggle

I place state-dependent relations alongside human-dependent relations and commodity-dependent relations. By state-dependent relations, I mean that states are the main component in the reproductive processes of societies, the main variable of the function called history. So in the context of class warfare, history is not the product of two classes, two variants of those who wage this war. History is the product of a matrix of infinite variables. And when we explore these variables, we make history and social science.^[2]

Human Emancipation and Globalization Momentum of Capitalism

Globalisation, the realisation of the production process of a commodity on a global scale, bringing the intellectual capacities and perspective of human beings to the global level, is the most advanced stage of humanity so far in terms of social forms. It has created real material and cognitive possibilities for the liberation of the individual. It has liberated the individual and thus societies from the constraints of time and space. All the possibilities of human emancipation have been revealed.”^[2]

Sınıftan Kaçan Çocuk^[2]

The conference “Marx, Marxisms and Freedom”

“The Conference on Marx, Marxisms and Freedom November 8-9, 2012^[16] organized by Hacettepe University Department of Economics allowed me to present my views on the issues I have been working on for a long time. In 1996, when I first published Praksis magazine, I laid the foundations for my thoughts below. But I still insisted that the problem with theory was in the understanding of Marxism as a whole, not in Marx and Engels. My work has resulted in me developing completely different theoretical perspectives and understandings of many fundamental issues of Marx, such as history, the dialectical method, the class struggle, his critique of capitalism, and his understanding of science. The first ground where I shared these views with the public was the scientific conference mentioned above. This text, which is also a reckoning with my own theoretical background, is undoubtedly far from satisfying the reader. Because it is an introductory text for a new theory of science; An introductory text that will encourage the mind, freed from the traditional ideological prejudices that rose on 19th-century social theories, to embark on new adventures boldly by relying on contemporary scientific data.”^[2]

1. The concept of class in Marx’s method

“I do not intend to discuss Marx’s method in its entirety within the confines of this article. Our main proposition, which we will discuss here, is that, in terms of Marx’s method, he does not recognize a particular category or concept as superior in the way that the concept of class is supposed to. In Marx’s method, no concept has an overriding importance over the others. The concept of class is a concrete concept according to the concepts before it (wage labour, capital, commodity, etc.) and an abstract concept according to the concepts that follow it. It is one of the concepts that make up the conceptual system that Marx used when writing Capital. The emphasis on the concept of class is political, not scientific. It is within this framework that we can begin to discuss Marx’s method.”^[2]

2. Does Marx have a method?

“Does Marx’s work present a coherent methodology? If we agree that Marx has a method, what is it? Or is this method dialectical materialism? Marx says that he will do a study in which he will deal with the method liberated from the mystical shell of Hegel’s philosophy. Nevertheless, the work and life of Marx preclude a return to this problematic area. Marxists see this as a testament and a duty entrusted to them. Dozens of dialectical books have been written and are still being written, especially after Lenin made his will that the logic of modern materialism and the theory of knowledge should be written in a Logic in which dialectics are systematically shown. The apocalypse around the last question still continues. The first superficial understanding of Marx, hence of Marxism, is that dialectical materialism is the philosophy and science of Marxism, as it is through dogmatism in the everyday language of traditional left groups. More critical attitudes, and even more anti-Stalinism, are that the conceptualization of dialectical materialism, like Western Marxism, was made by Plekhanov, under the influence of Engels, not Marx. Critical thinkers argue that Marx never used the concepts of dialectic and materialism side by side. Indeed, Marx does not use this pair of concepts side by side in his works. But does that justify them? When the intellectual development of Marx and his works in which he discusses the subject is examined, it is seen that dialectical materialism is a kind of synthesis of the criticized Feuerbach materialism and Hegel’s dialectical method. Materialism is the view that reality exists independently of human perception, thought, spirit and mind. But do not think from this definition that materialism carries a Cartesian dualism. Materialism sees thought forms as a reflection of matter and material life. Therefore, it is not a dualist ontology that presupposes thought along with matter, but a monist structure that sees thought as the form of matter or regards matters and material life as the basis. Dialectics, on the other hand, is seen as the law of motion of being. Engels’ definition is: “dialectic; It is nothing but the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society, and thought.” This absolute definition of Engels has been the dogmatic credo of all generations of Marxists to this day. Engels’ definition includes both epistemological and ontological dialectics. Therefore, it is extremely problematic. Let’s just state that; He defines dialectics not as a method of presentation, logic or epistemology, but as the law of motion of all reality. This definition is a metaphysical absolute, as it includes things we have not yet discovered. Because it contradicts its own materialist foundations. It claims that man knows all material reality at the given moment and that the laws of motion of this reality are dialectical. Whereas, dialectics was accepted as the laws of motion of matter discovered in their own time. To say that the yet undiscovered forms of matter and energy are governed by the newly discovered, that is generalized laws of motion, with an extremely limited level of knowledge at the beginning of the sciences, is to say that a divine secret has been discovered by humans. The conclusion to be drawn from these is that Marx does not have a method that he thinks about, works and reveals. Marx wrote Capital, not in a method of his own, but in a usable method, as much as he gathered from Hegel. However, this method is not foreign to Marx at all. It is the deductive method used by all classical economists. In this sense, Marx is the heir of Adam Smith and David Ricardo not only in the content of Capital but also in its method. Marx says that his method used in Capital is poorly understood, as contradictory understandings suggest. Capital C. I p.20. Just a few pages (p. 25) later, he says of his “Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, in which I discuss the materialist basis of my method…”. From this, it is clear that he thinks his method has a materialistic basis. After a long quotation criticizing his point of view, “What is the author describing other than the dialectical method, when he presents what he considers to be my method, so strikingly and generously from the point of view of my application?” he writes. In the next paragraph, “Of course, the method of presentation must differ in form from the method of inquiry… My dialectical method is not only different from the Hegelian method, but it’s opposite.” “My dialectical method…” Here, Marx not only says that his method is dialectical but also tries to distinguish it from Hegel’s method. “For Hegel, the life process of the human brain, that is, the thinking process – Hegel transforms it into an independent subject under the name of “Idea” (“idea”) – is the creator and architect of the real world, and the real world is only the external and phenomenal of the “Idea” format. For me, on the contrary, the idea is nothing but the reflection of the material world in the human mind and its transformation into thought forms.” Marx criticizes not Hegel’s dialectical method, but his “distorted by mysticism” structure. He continues, “The mysticism of dialectics in Hegel’s hands does not obscure the fact that he first presented the general mode of operation of dialectics in detail and consciously. In Hegel, the dialectic is upside down. If you want to find the rational core within the mystical shell, it has to be put back on its feet.” As can be seen very clearly in Marx’s passages, Marx retains the idealistic elements of Hegel’s dialectic by discarding it and placing it on a materialist basis. In all these passages and other books, you cannot see the dialectical materialism concept couple together, but you do not need to. Marx’s theory is dialectical materialist. Its ontology is materialist, and its method and theory of knowledge are dialectical. Therefore, the conceptualization of dialectical materialism, that is, the use of this pair of concepts together, is in accordance with Marx’s theory. So, what is meant by Marx’s method is not that he discovered and presented it, but that he had a method that he handled and used in a materialist way.”^[2]

Quantum Philosophy

İsmet Şahin’s Quantum Philosophy^[18] is an attempt to create a new philosophy of society, history, epistemology and science in his Quantum Mechanics studies. In this book, he confronts all metaphysical views that are influential on today’s scientific and intellectual understandings. The philosopher, who defines the Bing-Bang theory as a contemporary proof of God, also presents his thoughts against Marxism and its method, dialectical materialism, which he defines as a metaphysical understanding. The proposition of the philosopher, “There is no closed whole”, which he developed in his book Quantum Philosophy, which will guide the theoretical studies of the future in terms of epistemology, is remarkable: “The entire universe is an open-ended space. Closed space is a simple means of making something intelligible. The singular beginning is a reference to divine oneness. All deterministic understandings always assume a starting point of their own. Nothing arises from and evolves from a single thing. Nature, the universe, has always existed as a multiplicity, and its evolution arose as the accidental result of the intricate interactions of the many. Let’s assume a numeric variable and construct a polynomial function dependent on it. The variable quantity will change over time and will never draw a straight line. Graphical truth is just an abstraction. The change itself is related not only to the change in quantity but also to the effect that different variables have on the direction of motion. Since it cannot be a univariate movement, its own variations will also make the movement parabolic.^[18]

Ismet Şahin’s book Philosophy of Science, in which he also criticizes the Big Bang Theory: Quantum Philosophy.

The human-centred view makes the studies that have been put forward with the claim of being scientific from the beginning metaphysical. The discourse claims to be philosophy, “What is the nature of this?” he asks. And then by investigating the causes of the phenomenon that it has acquired. He thinks that in this way he reveals the truth beneath the superficial phenomenon. Underneath all the arrogance of being science or scientific philosophy is this set of “discovered” reasons that are thought to be the truth.^[19] The theory of causality leaves no room for chance because it assumes that the result includes all the causes or, in more scientific terms, its variables. Deterministic viewpoints think that all variables that reveal the result that appear in history and philosophy, and of course in nature, will produce the same result under all circumstances. Some understandings, such as Marxism and positivism, which have a deterministic point of view but differ a nuance from this, see the law of nature as a synthesis of chance and causality, coincidence and necessity. While many currents of thought and philosophers, claiming to do this, had revealed understandings and systems that they thought they had discovered reality in its entirety. Undoubtedly, these efforts have both scientific and practical benefits. But the claim that they reveal the totality, that is, everything in all its causality is a mere conjecture.^[18]

Bibliography

Books

• Imperialism (editor, 2001)
• The Anti-Capitalist Manifesto (author, 2010)
• The Kid Escaped the Classroom (writer and translator, 2014)
• Quantum Philosophy (author, 2018)

Articles

1. 1. 1. Why Are We Against Terrorism?
      2. On the Influence of Aristotle on Marx
      3. Diyalektik Platon Aristoteles Kant Hegel
      4. STATE-DEPENDENT RELATIONS or The State-Dependent Nature of Modern Social Movements
      5. Kognitif Bilissel Kapitalizm
      6. Hegel’s Critique of the Philosophy of History
      7. Philosophy’s Legacy: Understanding Its Role in Modern Science
      8. Frankfurt Okulu
      9. A PHILOSOPHER’S FICTIONALISED SEARCH FOR PARADISE
      10. The Marxist Theory of History
      11. The Rational Revolution and Hegel
      12. Akp Neden Gitmeli
      13. İmbilim Ders Notlari
      14. Beyefendi, Tristram Shandy’ninh hayatı Ve Görüşleri

Translations

1. Bilimsel Dünya Görüşü Viyana Çevresi^[20] – The Scientific Conception Of The World: The Vienna Circle^[21]
2. Bilim Felsefesine Kisa Bir Giriş^[20] – A Brief Historical Introduction To The Philosophy Of Science, In The Blackwell Guide To The Philosophy Of Science.^[22]
3. Bilim Felsefesi Klasik Tartışmalar, Standart Problemler, Gelecekteki Beklentiler^[20] – Philosophy Of Science: Classic Debates, Standard Problems, Future Prospects. In The Blackwell Guide To The Philosophy Of Science.^[23]

References