TECHNIFIED OBSERVATIONS AND COMPARABILITY IN SCIENCES

Authors

  • Carlos E González

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29092/uacm.v4i7.315

Keywords:

Comparability, Kuhn, incommensurability, translatability, theory-laddenness

Abstract

In this paper, I criticize the notion of incommensurability between scientific theories proposed by Kuhn and I put forward a form of comparability based on what I call technified observations as a way to avoid the problem of theory-laddenness produced by untranslatability between theories. I develop three criticisms to the notion of translation that underlies the kuhnian project and to the use of the term incommensurability to refer to this form of lack of isomorphism. I also suggest a way in which progress in science is possible. Finally, I point out some consequences this proposal has for the philosophy, history and sociology of science and for some issues in general epistemology.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Carlos E González

Licenciado en historia, estudios de maestría en lingüística aplicada.

References

BROWN, Harold I. (2005), “Incommensurability reconsidered” en Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, vol. 36, núm. 1, marzo. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 149-169.

CHOMSKY, Noam (2000), The Architecture of Language. Nueva Delhi: Oxford University Press.

FREEDMAN, Karyn L. (2005), “Naturalized epistemology, or what the Strong Programme can’t explain” en Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, vol. 36, núm. 1, marzo. Ams- terdam: Elsevier, pp. 135-148.

GIERE, Ronald N. (2002), “Distributed Cognition in Epistemic Cultu- res” en Philosophy of Science, vol. 69, núm. 4, diciembre. Chicago; University of Chicago Press, pp. 637-644.

KAUFFMAN, Stuart A. (1993), The Origins of Order. Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.

KUHN, Thomas S. (1961), “The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science” en Isis, vol. 52, núm. 2, University of Chicago Press, pp. 161-193.

_____ (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press.

_____ (1983a), “Commensurability, Comparability, Communicability” en P. Asquith y T. Nickles (eds.), PSA 198: Proceedings of the 1982 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 669-688.

_____ (1983b), “Rationality and Theory Choice” en Journal of Phi- losophy, vol. 80, pp. 563-570.

_____ (2000a [1997]), “Metaphor in science” en The Road since Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 196-207.

_____ (2000b [1991]), “The natural and the human sciences” en The Road since Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 216–223.

_____ (2000c [1989]), “Possible worlds in history of science” en The Road since Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 58-89.

_____ (2000d [1991]), “The road since structure” en The Road since Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 90-104.

_____ (2000e [1991]), “The trouble with the historical philosophy of science” en The Road since Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 105-120.

MATURANA, H. y F. VARELA (1980), Autopoiesis and Cognition: The rea- lization of the living. D. Reidel.

PUTNAM, Hilary (1987), The Many Faces of Realism. Illinois: Open Court Publishing.

Published

2007-08-23

Issue

Section

Dossier