<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="static/style.xsl"?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-04-14T18:31:54Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:uvadoc.uva.es:10324/48500" metadataPrefix="mods">https://uvadoc.uva.es/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:uvadoc.uva.es:10324/48500</identifier><datestamp>2021-09-02T20:47:03Z</datestamp><setSpec>com_10324_1156</setSpec><setSpec>com_10324_931</setSpec><setSpec>com_10324_894</setSpec><setSpec>col_10324_1294</setSpec></header><metadata><mods:mods xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" xmlns:doc="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-1.xsd">
<mods:name>
<mods:namePart>Marcos Martínez, Alfredo Faustino</mods:namePart>
</mods:name>
<mods:extension>
<mods:dateAvailable encoding="iso8601">2021-09-02T12:03:10Z</mods:dateAvailable>
</mods:extension>
<mods:extension>
<mods:dateAccessioned encoding="iso8601">2021-09-02T12:03:10Z</mods:dateAccessioned>
</mods:extension>
<mods:originInfo>
<mods:dateIssued encoding="iso8601">2021</mods:dateIssued>
</mods:originInfo>
<mods:identifier type="citation">Axiomathes, 2021</mods:identifier>
<mods:identifier type="issn">1122-1151</mods:identifier>
<mods:identifier type="uri">https://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/48500</mods:identifier>
<mods:identifier type="doi">10.1007/s10516-021-09574-3</mods:identifier>
<mods:identifier type="publicationtitle">Axiomathes</mods:identifier>
<mods:identifier type="essn">1572-8390</mods:identifier>
<mods:abstract>In this article, I argue that there is philosophy of science since philosophy existed. &#xd;
Thus, the idea that the philosophy of science was born with neopositivism is histori cally wrong and detrimental to the development of the philosophy of science itself. &#xd;
Neopositivism tried to found the philosophy of science as an anti-philosophical dis cipline, as a feld of study that came to replace simple philosophy. The attempt was &#xd;
maintained for thirty years, but failed. Now, this does not mean that we cannot make &#xd;
good philosophy of science today, but that the philosophy of science has returned to &#xd;
the common house of philosophy, it is gradually recovering the connection that it &#xd;
should never have lost with the main philosophical traditions and disciplines</mods:abstract>
<mods:language>
<mods:languageTerm>eng</mods:languageTerm>
</mods:language>
<mods:accessCondition type="useAndReproduction">info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</mods:accessCondition>
<mods:accessCondition type="useAndReproduction">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</mods:accessCondition>
<mods:accessCondition type="useAndReproduction">© 2021 The Authors</mods:accessCondition>
<mods:accessCondition type="useAndReproduction">Atribución 4.0 Internacional</mods:accessCondition>
<mods:titleInfo>
<mods:title>Philosophy of science and philosophy: The long flight home</mods:title>
</mods:titleInfo>
<mods:genre>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</mods:genre>
</mods:mods></metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>