DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14483/10.14483/udistrital.jour.RC.2015.22.a9Published:
10/10/2015Issue:
Vol. 22 No. 2 (2015): May-August 2015Section:
Research ArticlesConstrucción disciplinar del conocimiento científico
Disciplinary construction of scientific knowledge
Keywords:
Multidimensionalidad, complejidad, saber científico, disciplinariedad, ciencia, filosofía. (es).Downloads
Abstract (es)
En este artículo se presenta un análisis a la construcción disciplinar del conocimiento desde una perspectiva de la multidimensionalidad y la complejidad. Se hace un estudio de las dimensiones sociales que abarcan los efectos de la investigación científica sobre la vida humana y las relaciones sociales y culturales. En el desarrollo se cubren los aspectos socio-culturales de confianza, verdad y disciplinariedad, y del orden y la racionalidad del conocimiento científico, desde la perspectiva de una ciencia democrática y socio-responsable.
Abstract (en)
This article presents an analysis of the disciplinary construction of knowledge from a perspective of multidimensionality and complexity. A study is made of the social dimensions that encompass the effects of scientific research on human life and social and cultural relations. The socio-cultural aspects of trust, truth, and disciplinarity, and the order and rationality of scientific knowledge are covered in the development, from the perspective of a democratic and socio-responsible science.
References
Anderson, C. (2011). Democracy, Public policy, and lay assessments of scientific testimony. Episteme 8(2): 144-164.
Bronowski, J. (1956). Science and human values. New York: Harper and Bros.
Brown, J. (1989). The Rational and the social. London: Routledge.
Brown, J. (1994). Smoke and mirrors: How science reflects reality. New York: Routledge.
Cartwright, N. et al. (1996). Otto Neurath: Philosophy between science and politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cartwright, N. & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing it better. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cranor, C. (2004). Toward Understanding Aspects of the Precautionary Principle. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29(3): 259-279.
Daston, L. & Galison, P. (2010). Objectivity. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science 67(4): 559-579.
Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Fine, A. (2007). Relativism, pragmatism, and the practice of science. In
Cheryl, M. (Ed.), New pragmatists (50-67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fuller, S. (1988). Social epistemology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Giere, R. (1991). Knowledge, values, and technological decisions: A decision theoretical approach. In May, D. y Hollander, R. (Eds.), Acceptable evidence: Science and values in risk management (183-203). New York: Oxford University Press.
Giere, R. (2002). Scientific cognition as distributed cognition. In Carruthers, P. et al. (Eds.), Cognitive bases of science Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Giere, R. (2006). Scientific perspectivism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Giere, R. & Richardson, A. (1996). Origins of Logical Empiricism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Goldman, A. (1987). The foundations of social epistemics. Synthese 73(1): 109-144.
Goldman, A. (1994). Psychological, social and epistemic factors in the theory of science. Proceedings of the 1994 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (277-286). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.
Haack, S. (1996). Science as social: Yes and no. In Hankinson, L. & Nelson, J. (Eds.), Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science (79-94). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hacking, I. (2004). Historical ontology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hardwig, J. (1985). Epistemic dependence. Journal of Philosophy 82(7): 335-349.
Hardwig, J. (1988). Evidence, testimony, and the problem of individualism. Social Epistemology 2(4): 309-321.
Hesse, M. (1980). Revolutions and reconstructions in the philosophy of science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hull, D. (1988). Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Järvinen, A. et al. (2014). Philosophy of Computer Science. Revista Antioqueña de las Ciencias Computacionales y la Ingeniería de Software (RACCIS) 4(1): 34-41.
Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kellert, S. et al. (2006). Scientific pluralism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a democratic society. Amherst: Prometheus Press.
Knorr, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the private interest. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lacey, H. (2005). Values and objectivity: The controversy over transgenic crops. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Latour, B. & Steven, W. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Laudan, L. (1984). The pseudo-science of science? In Brown, J. (Ed.), Scientific Rationality: The Sociological Turn (41-74). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Lee, C. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64(1): 2-17.
Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
May, D. & Hollander, R. (1991). Acceptable evidence: Science and values in risk management. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mill, J. (1859). On liberty. London: John W. Parker and Son.
Mirowski, P. & Sent, E. (2002). Science bought and sold. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Muldoon, R. & Weisberg, M. (2011). Robustness and idealization in models of cognitive labor. Synthese 183: 161-174.
Nelson, L. (1990). Who knows: From quine to feminist empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Nersessian, N. (2006). Model-based reasoning in distributed cognitive systems. Philosophy of science 73(5): 699-709.
Peirce, C. (1868). Some consequences of four incapacities. Journal of Speculative Philosophy 2: 140-157.
Peirce, C. (1878). How to make our ideas clear. Popular Science Monthly 12: 286-302.
Pickering, A. (1984). Constructing quarks: A sociological history of particle physics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Popper, K. (1950). The open society and its enemies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Roth, P. (2003). Kitcher's two cultures. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 33(3): 386-405.
Rouse, J. (1987). Knowledge and power: Toward a political philosophy of science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Schmitt, F. (1988). On the road to social epistemic interdependence. Social Epistemology 2: 297-307.
Serna, M.E. (2012). Social control for science and technology. In Larrondo, P. et al. (Eds.), 10th Latin American and Caribbean Conference for Engineering and Technolog LACCEI'12 (1-7).
Shapin, S. & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air pump. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Shrader, K. (1994). Expert judgment and nuclear risks: The case for more populist policy. Journal of Social Philosophy 25: 45-70.
Shrader, K. (2002). Environmental justice: Creating equality; reclaiming democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Solomon, M. (1992). Scientific rationality and human reasoning. Philosophy of Science 59(3): 439-354.
Solomon, M. (1994). Social empiricism. Noûs 28(3): 323-343.
Solomon, M. (1994a). A more social epistemology. In Schmitt, F. (Ed.), Socializing Epistemology: The Social Dimensions of Knowledge (217-233). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Strevens, M. (2003). The role of the priority rule in science, en: Journal of Philosophy 100: 55-79.
Tatsioni, A. et al. (2007). The persistence of contradicted claims in the literature. Journal of the American Medical Association 298(21): 2517-2526.
Thagard, P. (2012). The cognitive science of science: Explanation, discovery, and conceptual change. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Uebel, T. (2004). Political philosophy of science in logical empiricism: The Left Vienna Circle. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 36: 754-773.
Van Fraassen, B. (2008). Scientific representation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Welbourne, M. (1981). The community of knowledge. Philosophical Quarterly 31(125): 302-314.
Young, N. et al. (2008). Why current publication practices may harm science. PLOS Medicine 5(10): 1418-1422.
How to Cite
APA
ACM
ACS
ABNT
Chicago
Harvard
IEEE
MLA
Turabian
Vancouver
Download Citation
License
When submitting their article to the Scientific Journal, the author(s) certifies that their manuscript has not been, nor will it be, presented or published in any other scientific journal.
Within the editorial policies established for the Scientific Journal, costs are not established at any stage of the editorial process, the submission of articles, the editing, publication and subsequent downloading of the contents is free of charge, since the journal is a non-profit academic publication. profit.
