Análisis epistemológicamente progresista y tradicionalista del error científico en las filosofías de Allchin y Feyerabend de Rescher

Deivide Oliveira; Lilia Queiroz

doi:10.5281/zenodo.5135886

Deivide Oliveira Universidade Federal do Recôncavo da Bahia-UFRB, Brasil
Lilia Queiroz Universidade Federal da Bahia-UFBA, Brasil

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5135886

Palabras clave: Inconsistencia teórica, Coherencia, Fiabilidad, Repertorio de errores, Pluralismo científico

Resumen

En la época moderna, Bacon y Descartes dedicaron algún tiempo a hablar de errores. Sin embargo, a fines del siglo pasado y principios del siglo XXI, el tema no recibió suficiente atención. Así, debatimos sobre tres autores diferentes acerca del error, representando dos categorias epistémicas que llamamos progresistas y tradicionalistas. El primer autor es Rescher (2007), a quien tomamos como partidario de un enfoque más tradicionalista, con un gran aporte a las investigaciones sobre el tema. El segundo autor, progresista, es Allchin, quienes destaca la necesidad de construir un catálogo de errores, para que podamos evitarlos gradualmente. Nuestro tercer autor, Feyerabend, ve errores en estas categorías: pequeños y completos. A diferencia de Allchin, Feyerabend pone más peso en cuestiones como el pluralismo y la relación entre el error y todas las estructuras teóricas de las que forma parte. Nuestro objetivo, más allá de explorar las opiniones de estos autores, es ver cómo en el siglo XXI presentan investigaciones diferentes pero contributivas sobre errores, aunque esperamos convencer al lector de que algunas de estas opiniones, como cómo Feyerabend contribuye a esta temática, parece estar en mejor armonía con la ciencia como vemos hoy en día.

Biografía del autor/a

Deivide Oliveira, Universidade Federal do Recôncavo da Bahia-UFRB, Brasil

Deivide Garcia da Silva Oliveira is Professor of history and philosophy of science, and philosophy of education at the Federal University of Recôncavo da Bahia, Brazil,. His PhD was completed at the Federal University of Bahia, Brazil. His research interest rovers around general philosophy of science, philosophy of biology, Feyerabend’s philosophy, and science teaching. More recently, he edited the book Filosofia da Ciência- Volume 3 (Ufpel, Forthcoming). Among his latest papers there is: 1- "The cosmological divergent proliferation in Feyerabend’s pluralism". In Principia: an international journal of epistemology, (Forthcoming).

Lilia Queiroz, Universidade Federal da Bahia-UFBA, Brasil

Lília Ferreira Souza Queiroz is PhD student in Teaching, Philosophy and History of Sciences at the Federal University of Bahia (UFBA). CAPES Scholarship. She has as advisor Prof. Dr. Gustavo Rodrigues Rocha and co-supervisor Dr. Deivide Garcia da Silva Oliveira. She has research interest in Philosophy and History of Sciences, and is researcher member of the Research Group on Philosophy, Science and Scientific Education (G-EFFICIENTIA)

Referencias

Allchin, Douglas. (1998). Do we see through a social microscope?: Credibility as a vicarious selector. Philosophy of Science, 66, S287-S298.

Allchin, Douglas. (2000a). The Epistemology of Error. Paper presented at the Philosophy of Science Association Meetings, Vancouver, B.C.

Allchin, Douglas. (2000b). To Err is Science. Paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science., Washington, DC.

Allchin, Douglas. (2001). Error Types. Perspectives on Science(9), 38-59.

Allchin, Douglas. (2004). Error and the Nature of Science. ActionBioscience [online].

Allchin, Douglas. (2012). Teaching the Nature of Science through Scientific Error. Science Education, 96, 22.

Allchin, Douglas. (2015a). Context-Dependent Anomalies and Strategies for Resolving Disagreement. In Empirical Philosophy of Science (pp. 161-171): Springer.

Allchin, Douglas. (2015b). Correcting the “self-correcting” mythos of science. Filosofia e Historia da Biologia, 10(1), 19-35.

Allchin, Douglas. (2016). Is Science Self-Correcting? The American Biology Teacher., 78(8), 695-698. doi:https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2016.78.8.695

Allchin, Douglas. (2020). Error Repertoires. In print. Retrieved from Minnesota Center for the Philosophy of Science. http://douglasallchin.net/papers/err-rep.pdf

Allchin, Douglas. (2021). [Quotation of papers not published. Message received by email in 13-07-2021].

Allchin; Douglas., & Werth, Alexander. (2017). The Naturalizing Error. Journal of the General Philosophy of Science.

Bachelard, Gaston. (1996). A Formação do Espírito Científico (E. d. S. Abreu, Trans.). Rio de Janeiro: Contraponto.

Bacon, Francis. ([1620]2003). The New Organon (L. Jardine & M. Silverthorne Eds. 3rd ed.). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Baker, Monya. (2016). Reproducibility crisis. Nature, 533(26), 353-366.

Chang, Hasok. (2012). Is Water H2O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Dordrecht The Netherlands; New York: Springer.

Darwin, Charles. ([1859]2009). The Origin of Species - By means of Natural Selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life (6th ed.). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Descartes, Rene. (1637 [2000]). Discourse on the method of rightly conducting the reason, and seeking truth in the sciences. In J. Veitch (Ed.).

Feyerabend, Paul. (1978). Science in a Free Society. London: NLB.

Feyerabend, Paul. (1993). Against method (3rd ed.). New York: Verso.

Feyerabend, Paul. ([1970]1981). Classical empiricism. In Philosophical papers - Problems of Empiricism (Vol. 2, pp. 34-51). Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hull, David. L. (1973). Darwin and his critics: The reception of Darwin's theory of evolution by the scientific community. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Kellert, Stephen. H., Longino, Helen. E., & Waters, C. Kenneth. (2006). Scientific pluralism(pp. xxix, 248 p).

Kuhn, Thomas. S. ([1962] 1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Mayo, Debora. G. (1996). Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mill, John. S. (1874). A System of Logic.Definitive 8th edition. 1949 reprint. In: London: Longmans, Green and Company.

Okasha, Samir. (2016). Philosophy of science: very short introduction: Oxford University Press.

Oliveira, Deivide. G. d. S. (2021). The cosmological divergent proliferation in Feyerabend’s pluralism. Principia: an international journal of epistemology, Forthcoming.

Pfeifer, Edward. J. (1965). The genesis of American neo-Lamarckism. Isis, 56(2), 156-167.

Plutynski, Anya. (2018). Explaining cancer: Finding order in disorder: Oxford University Press.

Rescher, Nicholas. (2007). Error: on our predicament when things go wrong. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Richards, Robert. J., & Ruse, Michael. (2016). Debating Darwin: University of Chicago Press.

Ruphy, Stéphanie. (2016). Scientific pluralism reconsidered: A new approach to the (dis) unity of science: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Skinner, Michael. K. (2015). Environmental epigenetics and a unified theory of the molecular aspects of evolution: a neo-Lamarckian concept that facilitates neo-Darwinian evolution. Genome biology and evolution, 7(5), 1296-1302.

Análisis epistemológicamente progresista y tradicionalista del error científico en las filosofías de Allchin y Feyerabend de Rescher

Resumen

Biografía del autor/a

Referencias

Revista indexada en