Uma breve introdução à filosofia da ciência em prática
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51359/2357-9986.2019.248090Keywords:
scientific practice, empirical turn, pragmatism, naturalism, society for philosophy of science in practice, philosophy-of-science in practiceAbstract
Philosophy of science studies science and the production of scientific knowledge. Usually, philosophical investigations of this field focus mainly on metaphysical, epistemological and methodological aspects of science. Despite being divided into general philosophy of science and philosophy of special sciences, philosophy of science, in a general way, is still distant from scientific practice per se. In order to fill this gap, a third subfield has emerged, philosophy of science in practice. This article provides a brief introduction to the philosophy of science in practice and to the Society for Philosophy of Science in Practice. It discusses its goals, methods, its social and empirical engagement. It is expected that this article will shed light on the diversity and possibility of investigations for a philosophy of science beyond meta-analysis, in other words, that are empirically engaged and socially informed.References
ANDERSEN, Hanne. The second essential tension: on tradition and innovation in interdisciplinary research. Topoi 32, pp. 3-8, 2013.
ANDERSEN, Hanne. Collaboration, interdisciplinarity and the epistemology of contemporary sciences. Studies of History and Philosophy of Science Part A 56, pp. 1-10, 2016.
ANKENY, Rachel; CHANG, Hasok; BOUMANS, Marcel & BOON, Mieke. Introduction: philosophy of science in practice. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 1(3), pp. 303-307, 2011.
AUFRECHT, Monica. The context distinction: controversies over feminist philosophy of science. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 1, n. 373, 2011.
AYMORÉ, Débora; KOIDE, Kelly & FERREIRA, Mariana Toledo. Ativismo, feminismo e filosofia da ciência: entrevista com Helen Longino. Scientiae Studia, São Paulo, vol. 15, n. 1, pp. 145-162 2017.
BARBEROUSSE, Anouk; BONNAY, Dennis & COZIC, Mikael. Précis de philosophie des sciences. Paris: Vuibert, 2011.
BOON, Mieke. Philosophy of science in practice: a proposal for epistemological constructivism. In LEITGEB, H; NINILUOTO, I; SEPPÄLÄ, P. & SOBER, E. (eds.) Logic, methodology and philosophy of science, pp. 289-310. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress (CLMPS 2015): College Publications, 2017.
BOUMANS, Marcel. & LEONELLI, Sabina. Introduction: on the philosophy of science in practice. Journal of General Philosophy of Science 44, pp. 259-261, 2013.
BOURDIEU, Pierre. Os usos sociais da ciência. São Paulo: Editora UNESP, [1997]2004.
BRAGA, Marco; GUERRA, Andreia & REIS, José Claudio. Breve história da ciência moderna. Vol. 1: Convergência de saberes (Idade Média). Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2003.
BRAGA, Marco; GUERRA, Andreia & REIS, José Claudio. Breve história da ciência moderna. Vol. 2: Das máquinas do mundo ao Universo-máquina (séc. XV a XVII). Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2004.
BRAGA, Marco; GUERRA, Andreia & REIS, José Claudio. Breve história da ciência moderna. Vol. 3: Das luzes ao sonho do doutor frankenstein (séc. XVIII). Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2005.
BRAGA, Marco; GUERRA, Andreia & REIS, José Claudio. Breve história da ciência moderna. Vol. 4: A belle-époque da ciência (séc. XIX). Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2007.
BRYSON, Anthony Alan. The view from the armchair: a defense of traditional philosophy. PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) thesis, University of Iowa, 2009.
CAPONI, Gustavo. Leyes sin causa y causas sin ley en la explicación biológica. Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2014.
CHANG, Hasok. Epistemic activities and systems of practice: units of analysis in philosophy of science after the practice turn. In SOLER, L; ZWART, S; LYNCH, M. & ISRAEL-JOST, V. (eds.) Science after the practice turn in the philosophy, history and social studies of science. New York: Routledge Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2014.
CID, Rodrigo. Leis da Natureza: uma abordagem filosófica. Macapá: UNIFAP.
CRAVER, Carl. Explaining the brain: mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neurosciences. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
CUPANI, Alberto. Formación científica y reflexión filosófica (Acerca de la utilidad de la filosofía de la ciencia en la formación del científico). Práctica Científica y Reflexión Filosófica. (Acessado em: https://www.unrc.edu.ar/publicar/cde/05/Cupani.htm).
DASTON, Lorraine. & GALISON, Peter. Objectivity. New York: Zone Books, 2010.
DE OLIVEIRA, Marco Barbosa. On the commodification of science: the programmatic dimension. Science & Education 22, pp. 2463-2483, 2013.
DE REGT, Henk. Understanding scientific understanding. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.
DE REGT, Henk & DIEKS, Dennis. A contextual approach to scientific understanding. Synthese 144, pp.137-170, 2005.
DUPRÉ, John. The disorder of things. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.
EL-HANI, Charbel Niño & LUDWIG, David. Philosophy of ethnobiology: understanding knowledge integration and its limitation. Journal of Ethnobiology, vol. 39, 2019.
FEYERABEND, Paul. Adeus à razão. São Paulo: Editora UNESP, [1987]2010.
FODOR, Jerry. Special sciences (or: the disunity of science as a working hypothesis). Synthese, pp. 97-115, 1974.
FRANK, Phillip. Philosophy of science: the link between science and philosophy. Upper Saddle River, NJ, US: Prentice Hall/Pearson Education, 1957.
FREETH, Rebecca. & CANIGLIA, Guido. Learning to collaborate while collaborating: advancing interdisciplinary sustainability research.Sustainability Sciences 11, n.3, 2020.
GALISON, Peter. How experiments end. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
GALISON, Peter & STUMP, David (eds.) The disunity of science: boundaries, contexts and power. Palo Alto, California: Stanford University Press, 1996.
HACKING, Ian. Representar e intervir: tópicos introdutórios de filosofia da ciência natural. Rio de Janeiro: EDUERJ, [1983]2012.
HEMPEL, Carl & OPPENHEIM, Paul. Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science 15, pp. 135-175, 1948.
KHALIFA, Kareem. Understanding, explanation and scientific knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
KITCHER, Philip. Explanatory unification. Philosophy of Science 48, pp. 507-531, 1981.
KNUUTTILA, Tarja. Modelling and representing: an artefactual approach to model-based representation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 42, pp. 262-271, 2011.
KOIDE, Kelly; FERREIRA, Mariana Toledo & MARINI, Marisol. Arqueologia e a crítica feminista da ciência: entrevista com Alison Wylie. Scientiae Studia, São Paulo, vol. 12, n. 3, pp. 5449-590, 2014.
KOSOLOSKY, Lazlo. Philosophy-of-science in practice vs. philosophy of science-in-practice. Newsletter SPSP, Winter , pp. 9-10, 2012.
KUHN, Thomas. A estrutura das revoluções científicas. 5a. ed. São Paulo: Editora Perspectiva S.A, [1962]1997.
KUSCH, Martin. A socially-engaged philosophy, 2020. Disponível em: <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyGsq118XnjrHhpgLCea6kg/videos>
LACEY, Hugh. Valores e a atividade científica. São Paulo: Editora Discurso, 1998.
LACEY, Hugh. Valores e a atividade científica 1. São Paulo: Associação Filosófica Scientia Studia/Editora 34, 2008.
LACEY, Hugh. Valores e a atividade científica 2. São Paulo: Associação Filosófica Scientia Studia/Editora 34, 2010.
LADYMAN, James. Understanding philosophy of science. Abingdon: Routledge, 2001.
LADYMAN, James. The history of philosophy of science. In. BECKER, K. & THOMPSON, I.D. (eds.) The Cambridge History of Philosophy, 1945-2015, pp. 189-209. Cambridge University Press, 2019.
LAKATOS, Inre. La metodología de los programas de investigación científica. Madrid: Alianza, 1987.
LEONELLI, Sabina. Data-centric biology: a philosophical study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2016.
LEONELLI, Sabina & TEMPINI, Niccolò. (eds.) Data journeys in the sciences. London: Springer, 2020.
LONGINO, Helen. Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Nova Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990.
LUDWIG, David & POLISELI, Luana. Relating traditional and academic ecological knowledge: echanistic and holistic epistemologies across cultures. Biology & Philosophy, vol. 33, n. 43, 2018.
MAYR, Ernst. O desenvolvimento do pensamento biológico: diversidade, evolução e herança. Brasília: UNB, [1982]1998.
MORGAN, Mari & MORRISON, Margareth (eds). Models as mediators: perspectives on natural and social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
MURCHO, Desidério. Does science need philosophy? Rev. Eletr. Infor. E Cogn., v. 5, n.2, pp. 50-58, 2006.
OLIVEIRA, Marco Barbosa. Sobre o significado político do positivismo lógico. Crítica Marxista, São Paulo: Boitempo, v. 1, n. 14, pp. 73-84, 2002.
OLIVEIRA, Tiago. Notas sobre o problema do realismo científico. Investigação Filosófica, v. 10, n. 2, pp. 47-59, 2019.
PICKERING, Andrew. (ed.) Science as practice and culture. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1992.
POLISELI, Luana. When ecology and philosophy meet: constructing explanation and assessing understanding in scientific practice. Tese (Doutorado em Ensino, Filosofia e História das Ciências) - Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, 2018.
POLISELI, Luana & LEITE, Clarissa Machado Pinto. Modelling transdisciplinary practices: an interplay between disagreement and trust. In.LUDWIG, D; KOSKINEN, I; POLISELI, L; MNCUBE, Z. & REYESGALINDO, L. (eds.) Global epistemologies and philosophies of science. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2020 (no prelo).
POPPER, Karl. A lógica da pesquisa científica. São Paulo: Cultrix, [1959]1993.
PSILLOS, Stathis. Scientific realism: how science tracks the true? New York: Routledge, 1999.
PSILLOS, Stathis. What is general philosophy of science? Journal of General Philosophy of Science, n. 43, pp. 93-103, 2012.
QUINHONES, Dionatans Godoy & COSTA, Márcio Luis. Filosofia: uma ciência prática? Multitemas, n. 38, pp. 145-159, jul., 2010.
RADDER, Hans. The commodification of academic research: science and the modern university. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010.
RADDER, Hans. What prospects for a general philosophy of science? Journal for General Philosophy of Science 43(1), pp. 89-92, 2012.
SALMON, Wesley. Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.
SHAPERE, Dudley. Reason and the search for knowledge: investigations in the philosophy of science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, v. 78. Drodrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1984.
SHINN, Terry & RAGOUET, Pascoal. Controvérsias sobre a ciência: por uma sociologia transversalista da atividade científica. Coleção Estudos sobre a Ciência e Tecnologia. São Paulo: Associação Nacional Scientia Studia/Editora 34, 2008.
SOCIETY FOR PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE IN PRACTICE. Mission statement. Disponível em: <https://www.philosophy-science-practice.org/about/mission-statement>. Acessado em: 13/06/2020.
SOLER, Léna. Tacit aspects of experimental practices: analytical tools and epistemological consequences. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 1, n. 393, 2011.
SOLER, Léna; ZWART, Sjoerd; LYNCH, Michael & ISRAEL-JOST, Vincent (eds.) Science after the practice turn in the philosophy, history and social studies of science. New York: praticantes da psp, I am aware that might be the case of my opinion in here might differ from those psp practioners, even tought, I believeRoutledge Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2014.
SRPOISE, The Consortium for Socially Relevant Philosophy of/in Science and Engineering. Disponível em: <http://srpoise.org/>. Acessado em 10/07/2020.
STERN, David. The practical turn. In TURNER, S.P. & ROTH, P.A. (eds.) The Blackwell Guide to the philosophy of social sciences, pp. 185-206. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2003.
THE TOOLBOX PROJECT. Dialogue initiative. Disponível em: <http://tdi.msu.edu/>. Acessado em: 15/07/2020.
WAGENKNECHT, Susan. Facing the incompleteness of epistemic trust: managing dependence in research practice. Social Epistemology 29(2), pp. 160-184, 2015.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
A Revista Perspectiva Filosófica orienta seus procedimentos de gestão de artigos conforme as diretrizes básicas formuladas pelo Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). http://www.cnpq.br/web/guest/diretrizesAutores que publicam nesta revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
Os autores mantém os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, sendo o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.pt_BR que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
Os autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista, com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista (Consultar http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html).
Esta revista está licenciada com uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional.
