The demarcation problem’s three phases
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Griot : Revista de Filosofia |
Texto Completo: | http://www3.ufrb.edu.br/seer/index.php/griot/article/view/2704 |
Resumo: | This article seeks to achieve two goals. First, to present a panoramic analysis of the three main contemporary conceptions about the demarcation problem. Traditionally, the demarcation problem has intended to conceptually delimit the boundaries between “science”, “non-science” and/or “pseudoscience” via criteria and definitions of science or scientificity. This issue – mainly in the 20th century, but not only – was present as one of the great intellectual challenges of the philosophy of science and in related areas. Indeed, our analysis has produced a division that selects three main phases, namely, optimistic perspectives, pessimistic perspectives, and, so to speak, hybrid perspectives. In light of this context, and in order to support the general architecture of the article, two authors from each phase were chosen for a schematic analysis. Second, this article seeks, in the end, to argue that the problem of demarcation is better understood and answered if characterized as more than an exclusively methodological and epistemological problem, that is, in this sense it would also be a value-added problem with political, social and therefore, practical. We termed it the dual dimension of the demarcation problem. Furthermore, we highlight that our emphasis on this interpretation is essentially in accordance with the defense made by the third approach analyzed in this paper. In the end, we defend that the third conception outlined here is a comparatively better alternative than the others. |
id |
UFRB-4_db9d9d1de719442681f101764a4b7241 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:seer.www.ufrb.edu.br:article/2704 |
network_acronym_str |
UFRB-4 |
network_name_str |
Griot : Revista de Filosofia |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
The demarcation problem’s three phasesAs três fases do problema da demarcaçãoDemarcation Problem; Science; Pseudoscience; Demarcation Criteria.Problema da Demarcação; Ciência; Pseudociência; Critério de demarcação. This article seeks to achieve two goals. First, to present a panoramic analysis of the three main contemporary conceptions about the demarcation problem. Traditionally, the demarcation problem has intended to conceptually delimit the boundaries between “science”, “non-science” and/or “pseudoscience” via criteria and definitions of science or scientificity. This issue – mainly in the 20th century, but not only – was present as one of the great intellectual challenges of the philosophy of science and in related areas. Indeed, our analysis has produced a division that selects three main phases, namely, optimistic perspectives, pessimistic perspectives, and, so to speak, hybrid perspectives. In light of this context, and in order to support the general architecture of the article, two authors from each phase were chosen for a schematic analysis. Second, this article seeks, in the end, to argue that the problem of demarcation is better understood and answered if characterized as more than an exclusively methodological and epistemological problem, that is, in this sense it would also be a value-added problem with political, social and therefore, practical. We termed it the dual dimension of the demarcation problem. Furthermore, we highlight that our emphasis on this interpretation is essentially in accordance with the defense made by the third approach analyzed in this paper. In the end, we defend that the third conception outlined here is a comparatively better alternative than the others. Este artigo busca alcançar dois objetivos. Primeiro, apresentar uma análise panorâmica das três principais concepções contemporâneas sobre o problema da demarcação. Tradicionalmente, o problema da demarcação pretendeu delimitar conceitualmente as fronteiras entre “ciência”, “não-ciência” e/ou “pseudociência” via critérios e definições de ciência ou de cientificidade. Tal problemática – principalmente no século XX, mas não só – fez-se presente como um dos grandes desafios intelectuais da filosofia da ciência e em áreas afins. Com efeito, nossa análise produziu uma divisão que recorta três fases principais, a saber, perspectivas otimistas, pessimistas e, por assim dizer, perspectivas híbridas. À luz desse contexto, e a fim de apoiar a arquitetura geral do artigo, selecionamos dois autores de cada uma dessas fases para uma análise esquemática. Segundo, buscamos, ao final, argumentar que o problema da demarcação é melhor compreendido e respondido se caracterizado como mais do que um problema exclusivamente metodológico e epistemológico, isto é, nessa acepção ele seria também um problema valorativo com contornos políticos, sociais e, portanto, prático. Chamamos isso de: dimensão dual do problema da demarcação. Ademais, destacamos que nossa ênfase nesta interpretação está de acordo, essencialmente, ao que defende a terceira abordagem analisada neste trabalho. Ao final, defendemos que a terceira concepção aqui esboçada é uma alternativa comparativamente melhor do que as demais.Universidade Federal do Recôncavo da Bahia2022-02-27info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPeer-ReviewedEvaluados por los paresAvaliados pelos paresapplication/pdfhttp://www3.ufrb.edu.br/seer/index.php/griot/article/view/270410.31977/grirfi.v22i1.2704Griot : Revista de Filosofia; v. 22 n. 1 (2022); 227-2502178-1036reponame:Griot : Revista de Filosofiainstname:Universidade Federal do Recôncavo na Bahia (UFRB)instacron:UFRBporhttp://www3.ufrb.edu.br/seer/index.php/griot/article/view/2704/1606Copyright (c) 2022 Robson Carvalhohttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCarvalho, Robson2022-02-27T22:04:58Zoai:seer.www.ufrb.edu.br:article/2704Revistahttp://www.ufrb.edu.br/griot/PUBhttp://www3.ufrb.edu.br/seer/index.php/griot/oai||griotrevista@gmail.com2178-10362178-1036opendoar:2022-02-27T22:04:58Griot : Revista de Filosofia - Universidade Federal do Recôncavo na Bahia (UFRB)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
The demarcation problem’s three phases As três fases do problema da demarcação |
title |
The demarcation problem’s three phases |
spellingShingle |
The demarcation problem’s three phases Carvalho, Robson Demarcation Problem; Science; Pseudoscience; Demarcation Criteria. Problema da Demarcação; Ciência; Pseudociência; Critério de demarcação. |
title_short |
The demarcation problem’s three phases |
title_full |
The demarcation problem’s three phases |
title_fullStr |
The demarcation problem’s three phases |
title_full_unstemmed |
The demarcation problem’s three phases |
title_sort |
The demarcation problem’s three phases |
author |
Carvalho, Robson |
author_facet |
Carvalho, Robson |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Carvalho, Robson |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Demarcation Problem; Science; Pseudoscience; Demarcation Criteria. Problema da Demarcação; Ciência; Pseudociência; Critério de demarcação. |
topic |
Demarcation Problem; Science; Pseudoscience; Demarcation Criteria. Problema da Demarcação; Ciência; Pseudociência; Critério de demarcação. |
description |
This article seeks to achieve two goals. First, to present a panoramic analysis of the three main contemporary conceptions about the demarcation problem. Traditionally, the demarcation problem has intended to conceptually delimit the boundaries between “science”, “non-science” and/or “pseudoscience” via criteria and definitions of science or scientificity. This issue – mainly in the 20th century, but not only – was present as one of the great intellectual challenges of the philosophy of science and in related areas. Indeed, our analysis has produced a division that selects three main phases, namely, optimistic perspectives, pessimistic perspectives, and, so to speak, hybrid perspectives. In light of this context, and in order to support the general architecture of the article, two authors from each phase were chosen for a schematic analysis. Second, this article seeks, in the end, to argue that the problem of demarcation is better understood and answered if characterized as more than an exclusively methodological and epistemological problem, that is, in this sense it would also be a value-added problem with political, social and therefore, practical. We termed it the dual dimension of the demarcation problem. Furthermore, we highlight that our emphasis on this interpretation is essentially in accordance with the defense made by the third approach analyzed in this paper. In the end, we defend that the third conception outlined here is a comparatively better alternative than the others. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-02-27 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion Peer-Reviewed Evaluados por los pares Avaliados pelos pares |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://www3.ufrb.edu.br/seer/index.php/griot/article/view/2704 10.31977/grirfi.v22i1.2704 |
url |
http://www3.ufrb.edu.br/seer/index.php/griot/article/view/2704 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.31977/grirfi.v22i1.2704 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
http://www3.ufrb.edu.br/seer/index.php/griot/article/view/2704/1606 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 Robson Carvalho http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 Robson Carvalho http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal do Recôncavo da Bahia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal do Recôncavo da Bahia |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Griot : Revista de Filosofia; v. 22 n. 1 (2022); 227-250 2178-1036 reponame:Griot : Revista de Filosofia instname:Universidade Federal do Recôncavo na Bahia (UFRB) instacron:UFRB |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal do Recôncavo na Bahia (UFRB) |
instacron_str |
UFRB |
institution |
UFRB |
reponame_str |
Griot : Revista de Filosofia |
collection |
Griot : Revista de Filosofia |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Griot : Revista de Filosofia - Universidade Federal do Recôncavo na Bahia (UFRB) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||griotrevista@gmail.com |
_version_ |
1754732700548202496 |