Search

The purpose of this text is to assert the thesis that scientific work, manifested in the production of analyses, theories, and concepts, irrespective of their disciplinary, multidisciplinary, or interdisciplinary origins, only unfolds when rooted in the primacy of the real. The complexity of scientific objects cannot be fully addressed exclusively within disciplinary confines. Discussions centered solely on theoretical, conceptual, or explanatory models, while assisting in transcending disciplinary limitations, do not propel the advancement of scientific knowledge. Contradictions in theoretical-conceptual and analytical production, explicit within disciplinary fields, arise not only from the limitations of disciplines but from how reality is conceptualized as concrete thought. Regardless of the discipline, theory and concept divorced from reality amount to mere speculation.

Sociologists, ethnologists, philosophers among others have tried to identify the norms or rules that govern scientific research; however, so far, they have not been widely accepted by scientists. This team followed a different path to identify the rules that govern scientific work by asking researchers if, in their opinion, there are rules in scientific research, and, if so, what they are. An opinion poll was conducted among 270 scientists who received academic training at universities in Mexico, Europe, and the United States, and who work at three universities in Mexico. The instrument is based on a social psychology theory that divides memories into spontaneous and assisted, and a dichotomous probability distribution was used to identify variations. Between eight and nine out of ten researchers from physical, biological, and social sciences recognized that there are four rules for research: to study reality as it is, have a critical attitude, have a methodological aptitude, and express willingness to openly publish results. Despite the heterogeneity of the disciplines researchers practice and the variety of their academic training, there is a consensus among scientists about the validity of such rules to conduct scientific research, although most of the time they do not mention them spontaneously.

The question of the metaphysical status of the laws of physics has received increased attention in recent years. Perhaps most well-known among this work are David Lewis’s Humean supervenience and Nancy Cartwright’s dispositionalism, both of which reject the classical conception of the laws of physics as necessary and real independent of the objects they govern, arguing instead that what we call laws are shorthand for the regularities of local states of affairs (on Lewis’s account) or the dispositions of objects (on Cartwright’s). The properties of necessity and reality are generally taken to go hand-in-hand when physical laws are concerned; however, this leaves aside the possibility that the laws of physics are independently real (i.e. not just a description of regularities of objects) yet contingent. This paper will explore this third option which is found in the work of Quentin Meillassoux. We will ask: if laws both exist independent of their objects and are contingent, what happens when laws change? Specifically, the possibility of metaphysical retro-causation becomes a live option. This raises both questions of the ontological status of the past as well as our epistemic access to the past after a change in physical laws. Meillassoux’s ontology of hyper-chaos weathers this challenge with its consistency intact; however, it is an open question of whether or not saving the reality of physical laws by sacrificing their necessity is worth the epistemic limits and metaphysical strangeness that it implies.

The etymological studies never were independent of the linguistic ones, although they have their own method, which will be shown in this paper in a historiographical way. From Plato’s thought to the creation of the Phonetic Laws during the Renaissance and to its development from the historical and comparative point of view of Gyarmathi, Rask and the authors from Germany, new assumptions are defined in the first half of the twentieth century, when there is a pause, resumed only at the end of the same century. The knowledge of the History of Etymology is particularly important to the future development of etymological studies of the Portuguese Language.

Se plantea la importancia del aporte de la epistemología de la ciencia a la enseñanza de la misma en las siguientes problemáticas: • la explicitación del marco teórico de referencia. •la selección y organización de contenidos. •la integración de las componentes cognoscitivas, metodológicas y afectivas de cada contenido. Se destaca la importancia de incorporar estas cuestiones a la formación de profesores.Abstract: This paper presents the main features respect the : *explicitation de theoretical frameworks *selection and organization of scientific contents *integration of cognitive,methodological and affective components of contents The importancie of these processes in science teachers education is detache

A discussão sobre abordagens paradigmáticas no campo da Administração pode ser profícua quando provoca os pesquisadores a refletir sobre premissas, práticas e valores compartilhados por uma comunidade científica. Entretanto, ao extremo, torna-se uma disputa que impede a busca de outras abordagens para lidar com a complexidade dos fenômenos sociais. Nesse sentido, importa compreender que, na produção do conhecimento científico, os pesquisadores não se deparam somente com escolhas acerca de epistemologia, de lógica ou de teoria linguística, mas, também, com problemas de política. Este ensaio objetiva contribuir com reflexões sobre o pesquisador e os desafios epistemológicos e políticos com os quais se depara no fazer pesquisa, argumentando que não se trata somente de uma escolha entre positivismos e interpretativismos, mas igualmente envolve disputas de poder dentro de um campo científico). Para tanto, foram selecionados intencionalmente textos com conceitos-chave, como paradigmas e campo científico. Em resposta ao objetivo geral deste ensaio, consideramos que o fazer ciência constitui uma atividade humana que possui vínculo indissociável com espaço e tempo e imbrica-se com jogos de poder. Entendemos, ainda, que o campo científico da Administração no Brasil é um espaço de competitividade e lutas políticas do qual fazemos parte, quer seja como opressores ou privilegiados, mas nunca como meros expectadores. Nessa arena, nem só de debates epistemológicos vive o pesquisador em Administração.

Este artigo relata investigação desenvolvida em processo de formação continuada de professores de ciências (das disciplinas Química, Biologia, Física e Ciências da Educação Básica) no âmbito de um curso de especialização de uma universidade pública. Tal investigação consiste em pesquisa narrativa por meio da qual se busca compreender relações entre reflexão epistemológica e formação docente. Procurou-se, particularmente, investigar que tipos de reflexões os sujeitos-professores constroem a partir da introdução de discussões relativas ao processo de produção, validação e apropriação social do conhecimento científico e as relações que estabelecem com suas histórias de atuação e formação pessoal e profissional. A análise do material empírico produzido sinaliza que dentre os aspectos nos quais o debate epistemológico estimulou reflexões, está a dimensão ético-política da ciência. Tais reflexões levaram os professores a reverem seus processos formativos, estabelecendo relações entre produção científica e critérios sociais de validação da ciência, como também a submeterem a análise de suas próprias práticas educativas a esses critérios.