Epistemología histórica cum relativismo epistémico
Resumen
En este artículo abordo las implicaciones de la epistemología histórica de los estilos de razonamiento científico para realizar un análisis de las quiebras comunicativas. Para ello me serviré del famoso debate entre Popper y Kuhn con motivo de un simposio celebrado en Londres en 1965. Popper observó en el Kuhn temprano de los paradigmas y la inconmensurabilidad, una instancia de lo que él llamaba el ‘mito del marco’ (‘the myth of the framework’), es decir, la creencia en la imposibilidad de que un investigador salga por un momento del marco de conceptos y principios dentro del cual está trabajando, y compararlo con otro marco en competencia. Argumento que el motivo del ‘mito del marco’ puede ayudar a clarificar algunos supuestos básicos de la epistemología histórica de los estilos de razonamiento científico, así como su relevancia para una teoría de la comunicación. A este respecto, mi tesis básica sostendrá que la explicación epistemológica de las quiebras comunicativas asume una concepción relativista de estilos de razonamiento con marco, mientras que las taxonomías de estilos presuponen una concepción transcendental de los estilos de razonamiento sin marco.
Palabras clave
estilos de razonamiento científico, desacuerdo, quiebra comunicativa, relativismo epistémico, pluralismo
Referencias
- Blumenberg, H. (2003). Trabajo sobre el mito. Barcelona: Paidós.
- Blumenberg, H. (2011). Descripción del ser humano. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
- Chandler, J.; Davidson, A. and Harootunian, H. (Eds.). (1994). Questions of Evidence: Proof, Practice, and Persuasion across the Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Chang, H. (2012). Is Water H2O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3932-1
- Chang, H. (2020). Relativism, Perspectivism and Pluralism. M. Kusch (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Relativism (pp. 398-406). London / New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351052306-43
- Crombie, A. (1994). Styles of Scientific Thinking in the European Tradition: The History of Argument and Explanation. London: Duckworth.
- Daston, L. (Ed.). (2000). Biographies of Scientific Objects. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Daston, L. and Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.
- Daston, L. and Galison, P. (2008). Objetivity and its Critics. Victorian Studies, 50 (4), pp. 666-677. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40060410 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2979/VIC.2008.50.4.666
- Davidson, A. (1996). Styles of Reasoning, Conceptual History, and the Emergence of Psychiatry. P. Galison and D. J. Stump (Eds.), The Disunity of Science (pp. 75-100). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- Davidson, A. (2001). The Emergence of Sexuality: Historical Epistemology and the Formation of Concepts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Davidson, A. (2004). La aparición de la sexualidad (J. López Guix, Trad.). Barcelona: Alpha Decay.
- Fleck, L. (1986). La génesis y el desarrollo de un hecho científico. Introducción a la teoría del estilo de pensamiento y del colectivo del pensamiento. Madrid: Alianza.
- Fuller, S. (2004). Kuhn vs Popper. The Struggle for the Soul of Science. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Gattei, S. (2008). Thomas Kuhn’s ‘Linguistic Turn’ and the Legacy of Logical Empiricism: Incommensurability, Rationality and the Search for Truth. Aldershot: Ashgate.
- Giere, R. (2016). Feyerabend’s Perspectivism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57 (1), pp. 137-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.11.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.11.008
- Hacking, I. (1982). Language, Truth and Reason. M. Hollis and S. Lukes (Eds.), Rationality and Relativism (pp. 49-66). Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
- Hacking, I. (2002). Historical Ontology. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.
- Hacking, I. (2012). Language, Truth and Reason’ 30 Years Later. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 43 (4), pp. 599-609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.07.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.07.002
- Hacking, I. (2015). Probable Reasoning and Its Novelties. T. Arabatzis; J. Renn and A. Simoes (Eds.), Relocating the History of Science. Essays in Honor of Kostas Gavroglu (pp. 177-192). Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14553-2_12
- Hales, S. (2014). Motivations for Relativism as a Solution to Disagreements. Philosophy, 89 (1), pp. 63-82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003181911300051X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S003181911300051X
- Kinzel, K. and Kusch, M. (2018). De-idealizing Disagreement, Rethinking Relativism. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 26 (1), pp. 40-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2017.1411011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2017.1411011
- Kuhn, T. (1970a). Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research? I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Series: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science. (pp. 2-24). London: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171434.003
- Kuhn, T. (1970b). Reflections on my Critics. I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Series: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science (pp. 231-278). London: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171434.011
- Kusch, M. (2009). Objectivity and Historiography. Isis, 100 (1), pp. 127-131. https://doi.org/10.1086/597564 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/597564
- Kusch, M. (2010). Hacking’s Historical Epistemology: A Critique of Styles of Reasoning. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 41 (2), pp. 158-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.03.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.03.007
- Kusch, M. (2011). Reflexivity, Relativism, Microhistory: Three Desiderata for Historical Epistemologies. Erkenntnis, 75, pp. 483-494. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-011-9336-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-011-9336-5
- Kusch, M. (2016). Relativism in Feyerabend’s Later Writings. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57 (1), pp. 106-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.11.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.11.010
- Kusch, M. (2019). Epistemischer Relativismus. M. Grajner and G. Melchior (Eds.), Handbuch Erkenntnistheorie (pp. 338-346). Stuttgart: Metzler. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04632-1_41
- Kusch, M. (2020). Relativism in Feyerabend’s Later Writings. M. Kusch (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Relativism (pp. 3-6). London / New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351052306
- López, S. y Domingo, A. (Eds.). (2003). Popper y Kuhn: Ecos de un debate. Barcelona: Montesinos.
- Lovejoy, K. (2018). A.C. Pigou and the ‘Marshallian’ Thought Style. A Study in the Philosophy and Mathematics Underlying Cambridge Economics. Cham: Palgrave.
- Moulines, U. (2015). Popper y Kuhn: dos gigantes de la filosofía de la ciencia del siglo XX. Barcelona: Bonalletra Alcompas.
- Peine, A. (2011). Challenging Incommensurability: What We Can Learn from Ludwik Fleck for the Analysis of Configurational Innovation. Minerva, 49 (4), pp. 489-508. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43548632 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-011-9180-4
- Popper, K. (1970). Normal Science and its Dangers. I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science 1965, 4 (pp. 51-58). London: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171434.007
- Popper, K. (1976). The Myth of the Framework. E. Freeman (Ed.), The Abdication of Philosophy. Philosophy and the Public Good: Essays in Honor of Paul Arthur Schilpp. LaSalle: Open Court.
- Popper, K. (1994) The Myth of the Framework. In Defence of Science and Rationality. London / New York: Routledge.
- Sciortino, L. (2016). Styles of Reasoning, Forms of Life, and Relativism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 30 (2), pp. 165-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2016.1265868 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2016.1265868
- Siegel, H. (1987). Relativism Refuted. A Critique of Contemporary Epistemological Relativism. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7746-5
- Wang, X. (2016). Incommensurability and Cross-Language Communication. London / New York: Routledge.
- Worrall, J. (2003). Normal Science and Dogmatism, Paradigms and Progress: Kuhn ‘versus’ Popper and Lakatos. T. Nickles (Ed.), Thomas Kuhn (pp. 65-100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613975.005