Toward a pragmatist philosophy of science

Este ensayo en tres partes comienza con un diagnóstico de la trayectoria de la filosofía general de la ciencia, tal como se cultiva en la tradición que se origina con la reforma hempeliana del positivismo lógico. Desde 1950, la filosofía anglófona de la ciencia ha buscado enfoques generales sobre teorías, confirmación y explicación. Ha reunído, en cambio, algunas herramientas valiosas para explorar problemas en las ciencias narurales y sociales, aplicándolas en un buen número de estudios útiles. La segunda parte del ensayo se ocupa de la cuestión de si hay algún proyecto continuador del tipo de investigación general inspirada por Hempel. Sostengo que se han ignorado algunas cuestiones metodológicas difíciles sobre la investigación colectiva. Los intenros para responder a estas cuestiones debieran ampliar nuestros recursos para comprender filósoficamente el conocimiento científico. La tercera parte se ocupa de la la situación de las ciencias en la sociedad. ¿Puede la investigación cientifica divorciarse de los intereses del público general? ¿Pueden sus conclusiones ignorar el tipo de evidencia que aceptan los no científicos? Defiendo un desarrollo del ideal de una ciencia bien ordenada y una concepción de la ciencia (¡en singular!) como una institución entre otras.Este enfoque recuperar temas importantes de la olvidada tradición pragmatista

Afterthoughts. Reply to Comments

I attempt to respond to the many questions and objections raised by the commentaries. The responses are grouped by themes, rather than focusing on the essays in sequence. So there are sections on worries about my analytical history, concerns about my meta-ethical perspective, doubts about my normative stance—and complaints about my perpetration of a ‘naturalistic fallacy’

The Importance of Social Epistemology

-

Biomedical Research, Neglected Diseases, and Well-Ordered Science

In this paper we make a proposal for reforming biomedical research that is aimed to align re-search more closely with the so-called fair-share principle according to which the proportions of global resources as-signed to different diseases should agree with the ratios of human suffering associated with those diseases

Localism vs. Individualism for the Scientific Realism Debate

Localism is the view that the unit of evaluation in the scientific realism debate is a single scientific discipline, sub-discipline, or claim, whereas individualism is the view that the unit of evaluation is a single scientific theory. Localism is compatible, while individualism is not, with a local pessimistic induction and a local selective induction. Asay (2016) presents several arguments to support localism and undercut globalism, according to which the unit of evaluation is the set of all scientific disciplines. I argue that some of his arguments clash with localism as well as with globalism and support individualism, and that individualism goes hand in hand, while localism does not, with the basic rule of how to evaluate an argument

Genetic Determinism and the Innate-Acquired Distinction in Medicine

This article illustrates in which sense genetic determinism is still part of the contemporary interactionist consensus in medicine. Three dimensions of this consensus are discussed: kinds of causes, a continuum of traits ranging from monogenetic diseases to car accidents, and different kinds of determination due to different norms of reaction. On this basis, this article explicates in which sense the interactionist consensus presupposes the innate–acquired distinction. After a descriptive Part 1, Part 2 reviews why the innate–acquired distinction is under attack in contemporary philosophy of biology. Three arguments are then presented to provide a limited and pragmatic defense of the distinction: an epistemic, a conceptual, and a historical argument. If interpreted in a certain manner, and if the pragmatic goals of prevention and treatment (ideally specifying what medicine and health care is all about) are taken into account, then the innate–acquired distinction can be a useful epistemic tool. It can help, first, to understand that genetic determination does not mean fatalism, and, second, to maintain a system of checks and balances in the continuing nature–nurture debates