Search

In this paper I present the position of two philosophers associated with the hermeneutic tradition, Gianni Vattimo and Charles Taylor, about the status of scientific knowledge in our contemporary world. Through a brief exposition of the fundamental features of their respective ontologies and epistemologies, I seek to offer a critical comparison. In the conclusion, I defend the superiority of Taylor's formulation, inasmuch it allows to put in question the primacy of the natural science model without abandoning a realist conception of the world and of the category of truth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is about the development of a critical thought that recognizes interculturality and social complexity, for the promotion of heterogeneity as an alternative to a homogenizing education in hegemonic capitalism. In this, the reflection on the instrumentalization of scientific knowledge for economic purposes is prioritized and the question is formulated about the opening of the school towards other knowledge, that propitiation a critical position on the prevailing model, exposing the school as the place in which the possibility of collective construction of a future society that promotes human well-being begins. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I will discuss what specific traits distinguish sciences from other historical institutions. First I will review several philosophies conceiving sciences having in mind constitutive, but generic, features. This is the case when sciences are understood as explanation, as comprehension, as knowledge, as description, as representation, as construction, as cultural institution, as experimentation and elaboration of hypotheses, as theory, and as instrument of domination and intervention on reality. I put forward certain specific traits of theorems and scientific fields that allow us to distinguish sciences from other historical formations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The problem of unequal territorial integration in the Argentinean Patagonia has been widely studied. This article analyzes the interactions between national and scientific rhetorics in the understanding and design of the Patagonian territory, which allows for the interpellation of scientific technical knowledge from the perspective of its political significance. The paper seeks to broaden the academic register and further the critique of the scientific discourse that grounded the development model for the Argentinean Patagonia from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th. It discusses the historiographical background that linked knowledge to utilitarian logic, based on a cross-referenced analysis of writings by naturalists and emblematic figures of planning of the appropriation and Patagonian development during the analyzed period. It shows the strong impact of scientific production on the social and moral planning of a territory that was incorporated late and unequally into the organization of the State. In Patagonia, the national rhetoric describes its progress in terms of a future promise, defining everything that exists there, persons, plants, and animals, as obstacles to the fulfillment of that promise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses the epistemological tensions generated due to the search for legitimization of scientific knowledge. It stems from the discussion about science seen through "nomothetic" and "ideographic" standpoints, coming to the conclusion that there is a tendency to theorize from a vision that comes from an organizational order, putting on the back burner, to a large extent, the legitimizer tension that occurs in the socialization of scientific knowledge. The paper also values possibilities to analyze social sciences from Bourdieu's scientific field concept, who breaks up certain inertias about the official positions that theorize about science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This scientific paper focuses the problem of classification of methods of scientific research. Probably covered in theoretical research, not just what they have been awarded scientific knowledge that it is obtained, but also the method by which it is obtained. Is there any chance that supports logical methodological consistency of classification methods in this science are instituted? What reason attends the defense of the idea, that the methodology of scientific research stands through empirical methods, where, regardless of the empirical constitutes the above to the scientific level, the theoretical and the empirical are exclusive natures of knowledge? What arguments invoked in order to demonstrate the falsity of the thesis in which I become identical knowledge and methods according to their scientific nature? Why cling undoubtedly the medieval universal educational thought to absolute canons and the concept of method as a way or path holding?, we would not be far from the scientificity that he quintessential definition and it should be given? The basal idea is to defend and to subsume questions formulated above is to be irrevocably dialectical relationship between the method and theory, which necessarily comes first classification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]