Número 47 - 2014
Artículos

El caso Galileo o las Paradojas de una Racionalidad Científica Positivista según Paul Karl Feyerabend

PDF (Español (España))
  • Teresa Gargiulo
DOI : https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v0i47.662

Publiée 2014-12-07

Mots-clés

Comment citer

Gargiulo, T. (2014). El caso Galileo o las Paradojas de una Racionalidad Científica Positivista según Paul Karl Feyerabend. Tópicos, Revista De Filosofía, (47), 53–88. https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v0i47.662
Mention de droit d'auteur

Téléchargements

Les données relatives au téléchargement ne sont pas encore disponibles.

Altmetrics

Citas

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Résumé

El caso Galileo significó para Feyerabend la oportunidad de mostrar metodológica e históricamente las paradojas y limitaciones de una noción positivista de ciencia. A través de este hecho paradigmático de la ciencia moderna el vienés demuestra las contradicciones que suponen los distintos intentos del neo-positivismo lógico por establecer un criterio de demarcación que defina qué es la ciencia. Da cuenta de cómo aquellos elementos frente a los cuales el positivismo lógico procura delimitar una definición negativa de ciencia, constituyen paradojalmente el seno del quehacer científico del físico. Ahora bien, esto no implica –tal como han señalado un número considerable de críticos– que Feyerabend sostenga una visión anárquica, irracionalista o relativista respecto a la ciencia. Por el contrario, en un sentido positivo se puede decir que el caso emblemático de Galileo no sólo le ofreció a Feyerabend la oportunidad de formular una argumentación negativa y escéptica respecto a aquella noción de ciencia sino que, al mismo tiempo, representó para él una ocasión para repensar la ciencia desde una perspectiva o una racionalidad científica más amplia.
PDF (Español (España))

Références

  1. Andersson, G. (1984). “Introducción: Presupuestos, problemas, progreso”, Estructura y desarrollo de la ciencia, Radnitzky G., Andersson G. (eds.). Madrid: Alianza, 13-23.
  2. Anderson, G. (1991a).“Feyerabend on Falsifications, Galileo, and Lady Reason,” en Beyond Reason. Essays on the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend, Munevar G. (ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 281-295.
  3. Anderson, G. (1991b). “The Tower Experiment and the Copernican Revolution,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 5, 143-152.
  4. Barker, P. (2001). “Incommensurability and Conceptual Change During the Copernican Revolution,” en Incommensurability and Related Matters, Hoyningen-Huene, P., Sankey, H. (eds). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 241-273.
  5. Bhaskar, R. (1975). “Feyerabend and Bachelard: Two Philosophers of Science,” New Left Review 94, 31-55.
  6. Broad, P. (1979). “Paul Feyerabend: Science and the Anarchist,” Science 206, 534-537.
  7. Brown, H. (2001). “Incommensurability and Reality,” en Incommensurability and Related Matters, Hoyningen-Huene, P., Sankey, H. (eds). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 123-142.
  8. Bunge, M. (2003). Cápsulas. Barcelona: Gedisa.
  9. Chalmers, A. (1985). “Galileo´s Telescopic Observations of Venus and Mars,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 36, 175-184.
  10. Counihan, T. (1976). “Epistemology and Science - Feyerabend and Lecourt,” Economy and Society 5, 470-472.
  11. Drake, S. (1970). Galileo Studies: Personality, Tradition, and Revolution, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  12. Dwight van de Vate, J. (1991). “A New Slant on the Tower Experiment” en Beyond Reason. Essays on the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend, Munevar G. (ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 449-452.
  13. Farrell, R. (2003). Feyerabend and Scientific Values. Tightrope-Walking Rationality. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  14. Feldhay, R. (1995). Galileo and the Church: Political Inquisition or Critical Dialogue? New York: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Feyerabend, P. (1958). “Complementarity,” Proceedings of Aristotelian Society, Suppl. 32, 75-104.
  16. Feyerabend, P. (1958/1981a). “An Attempt at a Realistic Interpretation of Experience,” Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method, Philosophical Papers Volume 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17-36.
  17. Feyerabend, P. (1958/1981b). “Reichenbach´s Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,” Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method, Philosophical Papers Volume 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 236-246.
  18. Feyerabend, P. (1960). “Review of Patterns of Discovery. An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science, By N. R. Hanson,” The Philosophical Review 69, 247-252.
  19. Feyerabend, P. (1960/1981). “Professor Bhom´s Philosophy of Nature,” Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method. Philosophical Papers Volume 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 219-235.
  20. Feyerabend, P. (1960/1999). “The Problem of the Existence of Theoretical Entities,” Paul K. Feyerabend: Knowledge, Science and Relativism, Philosophical Papers Volume 3, John Preston (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,16-49.
  21. Feyerabend, P. (1961). “Review of An Introduction to the Logic of the Sciences. By Rom Harré,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 12, 245-250.
  22. Feyerabend, P. (1961/1999). “Knowledge Without Foundation,” Paul K. Feyerabend: Knowledge, Science and Relativism, Philosophical Papers Volume 3, John Preston (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 50-77.
  23. Feyerabend, P. (1962/1981a). “Hidden Variables and the Argument of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen,” Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method, Philosophical Papers Volume 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 298-342.
  24. Feyerabend, P. (1962/1981b). “Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism,” Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method, Philosophical Papers Volume 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 44-96.
  25. Feyerabend, P. (1962/1989). Límites de la ciencia. Explicación, reducción y empirismo, Barcelona: Paidós.
  26. Feyerabend, P. (1963/1999). “How to Be a Good Empiricist: a Plea for Tolerance in Matters Epistemological,” Paul K. Feyerabend: Knowledge, Science and Relativism. Philosophical Papers Volume 3, John Preston (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 78-103.
  27. Feyerabend, P. (1964/1981). “The Structure of Science,” Problems of Empiricism. Philosophical Papers Volume 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 52-64.
  28. Feyerabend, P. (1965). “Problems of Empiricism,” Beyond the Edge of Certainty. Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy, Colodny R. (ed.). Pittsburg, CPS Publications in the Philosophy of Science,145-260.
  29. Feyerabend, P. (1965/1981). “Reply to Criticism. Comments on Smart, Sellars and Putnam,” en Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method, Philosophical Papers Volume 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 104-131.
  30. Feyerabend, P. (1967). “Review of Law and Psychology in Conflict,” By J. Marshall. Inquiry 10, 114-120.
  31. Feyerabend, P. (1970/1989). Contra el Método. Esquema de una Teoría Anarquista del Conocimiento, Barcelona: Ariel.
  32. Feyerabend, P. (1972/1999). “On the Limited Validity of Methodological Rules,” Paul K. Feyerabend: Knowledge, Science and Relativism, Philosophical Papers Volume 3, John Preston (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 138-180.
  33. Feyerabend, P. (1975/1992). Tratado contra el Método. Esquema de una Teoría Anarquista del Conocimiento, Madrid: Tecnos.
  34. Feyerabend, P. (1977). “Review of Changing Patterns of Reconstruction,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 28, 351-382.
  35. Feyerabend, P. (1977/1999). “Rationalism, Relativism and Scientific Method,” Paul K. Feyerabend: Knowledge, Science and Relativism, Philosophical Papers Volume 3, John Preston (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 200-211.
  36. Feyerabend, P. (1978/1982). La ciencia en una sociedad libre, Madrid: Veintiuno Editores s.a. Feyerabend, P. (1981a). Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method, Philosophical Papers Volume 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  37. Feyerabend, P. (1981b). Problems of Empiricism. Philosophical Papers Volume 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  38. Feyerabend, P. (1981c). “Introduction: Scientific Realism and Philosophical Realism,” Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method, Philosophical Papers Volume 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 3-16.
  39. Feyerabend, P. (1985/2002). “Galileo and the Tyranny of Truth,” en Farewell to Reason, New York: Verso, pp. 247-264.
  40. Feyerabend, P. (1989/2000). Diálogos sobre el método, 2ª ed. Madrid: Cátedra.
  41. Feyerabend, P. (1991). Diálogos sobre el conocimiento, Madrid: Cátedra.
  42. Feyerabend, P. (1993/2008). Against Method, Third Edition. London: Verso.
  43. Feyerabend, P. (1994/1995). Matando el tiempo. Autobiografía, Madrid: Debate S.A.
  44. Feyerabend, P. (1996/1999). Ambigüedad y Armonía, Barcelona: Paidós.
  45. Finocchiaro, M. (1973). “Review of I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 3, 361.
  46. Finocchiaro, M. (1980). “Galileo and the Art of Reasoning: Rhetorical Foundations of Logic and Scientific Method,” Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 61, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
  47. Finocchiaro (1980). “The Rationality of Science and the Science of Rationality: Critique of Subjectivism, en Galileo and the Art of Reasoning: Rhetorical Foundations of Logic and Scientific Method,” Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 61, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 180-201.
  48. Gonzalez Recio J. Rioja A., (2007). Galileo en el infierno. Un diálogo con Paul K. Feyerabend, Madrid: Trotta.
  49. Gellner, E. (1975a). “Review of Beyond Truth and Falsehood,” The British Journal of Philosophy of Science 26, 331-342.
  50. Giedymin, J., (1971). “Consolations for the Irrationalist,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 22, 39-53.
  51. Grunfeld, J., (1984). “Feyerabend´s Irrational Science,” Logical Analisys 27, 221-232.
  52. Hacking, I. (1994). “Paul Feyerabend, Humanist,” Common Knowledge 3, 23-28.
  53. Hattiangadi, J. (1977). “The Crisis in Methodology: Feyerabend,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 7, 289-302.
  54. Hooker, C. (1991). “Between Formalism and Anarchism: A Reasonable Middle Way,”Beyond Reason. Essays on the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend, Munévar, G. (ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 41-107.
  55. Horgan, J. (1993) “Paul Karl Feyerabend: El peor enemigo de la ciencia”, Investigación y Ciencia 201, 34-48.
  56. Krige, J. (1980). Science Revolution and Discontinuity, Brighton: Harvester Press.
  57. Kulka, T. (1977). “How Far does Anything Go? Comments on Feyerabend’s Epistemological Anarchism,” Philosophy of the social sciences 7, 277-287.
  58. Lloyd E., (2000). “Feyerabend, Mill, and Pluralism,” The Worst Enemy of Science? Essays in Memory of Paul Feyerabend, J. Preston, G. Munévar and D. Lamb (eds.). New York: Oxford University Press, 115-124.
  59. Machamer, P. (1973). “Feyerabend and Galileo: The Interactions and the Reinterpretation of Experience,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 4, 285-309.
  60. Margolis, J. (1991). “Scientific Methods and Feyerabend ´s Advocacy of Anarchism,” Beyond Reason. Essays on the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend, Munevar G. (ed). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 465-486.
  61. Munévar, G. (1991a). (ed.) Beyond Reason. Essays on the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  62. Munévar, G. (1991b). “Science in Feyerabend ´s Free Society,” Beyond Reason. Essays on the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 179-198.
  63. Munévar, G. (2000). “Preface,” The Worst Enemy of Science? Essays in Memory of Paul Feyerabend, J. Preston, G. Munévar and D. Lamb (eds.). New York: Oxford University Press, v-vi.
  64. Munévar, G. (2006). Variaciones filosóficas sobre temas de Feyerabend, Germán Guerrero Pino (comp.). Caracas: Programa editorial Universidad del Valle.
  65. Musgrave, A. (1978). “Evidential Support, Falsification, Heuristics, and Anarchism,” Progress and Rationality in Science, Radnitzky G., Andersson G. (eds.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Pub. Co., 181-201.
  66. Naess, A. (1975). “Why not Science for Anarchists too? A Reply to Feyerabend,” Inquiry 18, 183-194.
  67. Neto, J. (1991). “Feyerabend´s Skepticism,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 22, 543-555.
  68. Nersessian N. (2001). “Concept Formation and Commensurability,” en Incommensurability and Related Matters, Hoyningen-Huene, P., Sankey, H. (eds). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 275- 301.
  69. Newton-Smith, W. H. (2003). “Feyerabend the Passionate Liberal,” en The Rationality of Science, London-New York: Routledge, 125-148.
  70. Nickels, T., (1998). “La Epistemología según Feyerabend”, Cinta de Moebio 4, 123-129.
  71. Oberheim E., (2006), Feyerabend’s Philosophy. Quellen Und Studien Zur Philosophie, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  72. Preston, J., (1997). Feyerabend. Philosophy, Science and Society, Oxford: Blackwell.
  73. Preston, J. (2000). “Science as Supermarket: `Post-Modern´ Themes in Paul Feyerabend´s Later Philosophy of Science,” The Worst Enemy of Science? Essays in memory of Paul Feyerabend. J. Preston, G. Munévar and D. Lamb (eds.). New York: Oxford University Press, 80-101.
  74. Preston, J., Lamb, D. (2000). “Introduction,” “The Worst Enemy of Science? Essays in memory of Paul Feyerabend, J. Preston, G. Munévar and D. Lamb (eds.). New York: Oxford University Press, xiii-xvii.
  75. Preston, J., Munévar G. and Lamb, D. (eds.). (2000). The Worst Enemy of Science? Essays in memory of Paul Feyerabend, New York: Oxford University Press.
  76. Ribes, D. (1989). “Introducción: Pluralismo teórico y límites de la ciencia,” Feyerabend P. K., Límites de la ciencia. Explicación, reducción y empirismo, Barcelona: Paidós, 9-35.
  77. Rossi, P. (1975). “Hermeticism, Rationality and the Scientific Revolution,” Reason, Experiment and Mysticism in the Scientific Revolution, Righini Bonelli M.L., Shea W.R. (eds). London: Macmillan.
  78. Theocharis, T., Mihalis, P., (1987), “Where Science Has Gone Wrong,” Nature 329, 595-598.
  79. Thomason, N. (1994). “The Power of ARCHED Hypotheses: Feyerabend´s Galileo as a Closest Rationalist,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45, 255-264.
  80. Shapere, D. (2001). “Reasons, Radical Change and Incommensurability in Science,” en Incommensurability and Related Matters, HoyningenHuene, P., Sankey, H. (eds). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 181-206.
  81. Tsou, J. (2003). “Reconsidering Feyerabend’s “Anarchism”,”Perspectives on Science 11, 208-235.
  82. Watkins, J. (2000). “Feyerabend among Popperians 1948-1978,” The Worst Enemy of Science? Essays in memory of Paul Feyerabend, J. Preston, G. Munévar and D. Lamb (eds.). New York: Oxford University Press, 47- 57.
  83. Worrall, J. (1978). “Against Too Much Method,” Erkenntnis 13, 279-295.
  84. Worrall, J. (1991). “Feyerabend and the Facts” en Beyond Reason. Essays on the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend, Munévar G. (ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 329-354.